Really torn between trail runners and boots...

[buff_jeff]

Right now I use these:
http://www.rei.com/product/721359

I've put about 300 miles on them and haven't had many significant problems but after sectioning Maryland a few weeks ago, my feet got pretty swollen and sore. I looked into it a little and saw that that can happen if you have big clunky hiking boots that are too tight. I also heard these types of boots are more conducive to blisters. I'm going to try and section from Springer to Harpers Ferry and then up in NJ/NY this summer and I'm not sure that trail runners would hold up.

I guess my big question, since I haven't been able to really find any good resources online, is what are the advantages of trail runners? Do you really sacrifice a lot of stability? Do they take less time to break in? I get mild shin splints from running now and again, would boots better serve me with the ankle support? Thanks in advance for the help.

[taildragger]

Do a search on this forum, you'll get tons of info

[Appalachian Tater]

The problem with boots besides the weight is that they restrict ankle movement and so make you more prone to injury. As far as I know, ankle support has nothing to do with shin splints. Anyway, I don't think boots actually give ankle support, they just restrict movement. If you need ankle support, get an ankle brace or ACE wrap.

[minnesotasmith]

Right now I use these:
http://www.rei.com/product/721359

I've put about 300 miles on them and haven't had many significant problems but after sectioning Maryland a few weeks ago, my feet got pretty swollen and sore. I looked into it a little and saw that that can happen if you have big clunky hiking boots that are too tight. I also heard these types of boots are more conducive to blisters. I'm going to try and section from Springer to Harpers Ferry and then up in NJ/NY this summer and I'm not sure that trail runners would hold up.

I guess my big question, since I haven't been able to really find any good resources online, is what are the advantages of trail runners? Do you really sacrifice a lot of stability? Do they take less time to break in? I get mild shin splints from running now and again, would boots better serve me with the ankle support? Thanks in advance for the help.

South of central PA, there aren't 20 miles on the AT where I'd see boots as possibly advantageous. North of there, it's more up in the air. Thicker soles would have been nice on the unfinished rock jumble called the AT in E PA. Likewise, cooler weather and snow are more amenable to boots.

I still went with TRs the whole way, and would do it that way again.
============================================
Re your shin splints...

I think that hiking too fast on hard surfaces with insufficient footwear shock absorption is likely a contributing factor for many. However, the calf muscles becoming overly strong relative to shin muscles is even bigger IMO. Normally, the ratio is something like 5:1, but can exceed 20:1 or even 50:1 for athletes that don't tend to this issue. That can be dealt with by certain exercises. I like the one where you lie on your back on a picnic table, with your legs just above the knees on down off the edge. Put small weights (like 1 pound ankle weights) on each ankle. Slowly raise and lower one leg at a time from horizontal to vertical. Build up to doing 50+ on each leg 2 out of 3 days. When I had shin splints while on the cross-country team in high school, I found this helpful.

[Blissful]

If you will be doing that much hiking, then you will likely need at least two pair of trail runners. I had a weak left ankle and found my ankles got stronger as I wore mine. The boots contributed to my right calf pain. Trail runners hardly need any breaking in -maybe a day or two just to get used to them. I also used different insoles in them. You also need to watch the weight you are carrying; trail runners are better as well if your backpack weight is kept down.

[buff_jeff]

Thanks for the advice, everybody. I'm going to look into some New Balance trail runners. NB has a store right on campus here. I also got some trekking poles and have cut my pack weight down to somewhere between 33 and 36 pounds, so that should help me a good bit.

[Summit]

Trail runners are the best thing to happen to hiking in my life time! Of the major brands, NB, Vasque, Merrell, Solomon, etc. go with what fits and feels the best. You'll want Vibram soles for durability and comfort on rocky terrain. Some of the conditions mentioned that are, on the surface, not friendly to trail runners (snow, cold) have work-arounds. Sealskinz socks will conquer rain, snow and cold. Make sure the trail runners you go with are big enough to wear the sock system you use (thin liner and thick Thorlo or wool outer socks. The Sealskinz aren't much thicker than a heavy wool sock and can be worn over a thin liner, keeping a fantastic feel and fit.

[warraghiyagey]

Trailrunners changed hiking for me, no pain. Definitely vibram soles and I do get the mid ankle, other than that find your brand.
The heavy hiking boots were so tough on my feet, knees and body in general.

[naturejunkie]

You may want to consider a middle ground and go with a hiking shoe like a Keen Targhee or something similar.

[wilconow]

I understand that Trail Runners don't work for everyone.. but I don't see why one doesn't at least try them out. So much less weight

Another advantage they dry much quicker. Yes ,they're more susceptible to get wet compared to a bulky gore-tex boot, but in a downpour or if you slip in a steamcrossing, everything will get wet. Goretex will take forever to dry out, trail runners will do it pretty quickly

[walkin' wally]

I know I asked this question before but for those who have done long distance hiking in trail runners....

Did you folks have to move a size up when replacing your trail runners?
Or just 'plug and play' the same size?

[Darwin again]

Most light hiking boots and trail runners have a very limited mileage on them. I use Dunham Nimbles and their soles go flat at just about exactly 230 miles and I start to have foot and ankle problems. No kidding, it's like the shoes have odometers on them!

(Note that I'm about 6'2" and 200, so I wear them relatively hard. The soles usually look fine, all the seams intact, no visible problems, just dead shoes, which lead to trouble. I've been through four pair so far.)

That's just my experience. Others have taken single pairs of relatively light shoes the whole length of the trail, so YMMV. Literally.

[aaroniguana]

I have a pair of Garmonts for hiking in snow and rocks and wear Merrell Moab Ventilators everywhere else. I've learned to buy a half size large in trail runners, especially Merrell which run a tad small.

I got almost 800 exclusive trail miles out of my last pair of Merrells before they showed any signs of delaminating and my Garmonts (which are so old I'm sure they don't make this model anymore) have at least 5 times that. Compare that to my first pair of trail runners, New Balance M008s which left me barefooting down to Lake George in the Adirondacks after 10 days. Luckily it was July. But NBs have gotten a lot better, or so I've heard.

[Summit]

It's true that everyone's mileage does vary, in both trail runners and conventional heavy leather hightop hiking boots. I don't think anyone would try to argue that trail runners last longer than conventional boots either. Trail runners are also a little cheaper. The point I would make is that even though the cost of ownership per mile is higher with trail runners, man when your feet ache and hurt and you're dealing with blisters, you aren't having a great time. In fact hiking sucks when you're going through that. I know. I've been there. So how can you put a price on happy feet vs. sore, aching, blistered feet? I know I can't.

aaroniguana mentioned his trail runners "blowing out" on him after 10 days. I've never had that happen to me with trail runners. I have had that happen to me with the most expensive pair of conventional leather boots I ever bought. Both toes delamenated in less than 20 miles and they were brand new. The point here is that can happen to any boot / trail runner. If you happen to be unlucky and buy a pair that was glued with a bad batch of glue it can happen with any Vibram soled shoe.

Anyway, a better comparison than how many miles you get out of a pair of trail runners vs. conventional boots is how many blister-free, non-aching miles do you get out of them compared to conventional boots?

[minnesotasmith]

Most light hiking boots and trail runners have a very limited mileage on them. I use Dunham Nimbles and their soles go flat at just about exactly 230 miles and I start to have foot and ankle problems. No kidding, it's like the shoes have odometers on them!

(Note that I'm about 6'2" and 200, so I wear them relatively hard. The soles usually look fine, all the seams intact, no visible problems, just dead shoes, which lead to trouble. I've been through four pair so far.)

That's just my experience. Others have taken single pairs of relatively light shoes the whole length of the trail, so YMMV. Literally.

5 pairs of Dunham Terrastriders took me the whole AT, with body weight averaging over 220, and everyone here knows what my pack weight was like.

Oh, and my shoe size did NOT go up over the course of my hike. Already having flat feet may have had something to do with that.

[highway]

I do better with the sandal version of rail runners and double the mileage-300 for the trail runners and ~600 for the Teva Wraptor sandals. My feet seem to like them better for a longer period. The trail runners are worn completely out long before the tread of the sole is gone. The sandals take longer to break in though.

[buff_jeff]

If you will be doing that much hiking, then you will likely need at least two pair of trail runners. I had a weak left ankle and found my ankles got stronger as I wore mine. The boots contributed to my right calf pain. Trail runners hardly need any breaking in -maybe a day or two just to get used to them. I also used different insoles in them. You also need to watch the weight you are carrying; trail runners are better as well if your backpack weight is kept down.

Just thought I'd say that's a sweet avatar. I went by that last year in May. I'm not religious, but it's neat nonetheless.

[peakbagger]

I will ditto the 500 mile range on new balance 800 series, each year they wear out in someplace different but once they get about 500 miles its time to retire them. Last years model 810 is availlable for around $50 a pair at close out shops on the web.

[Ender]

The problem with boots besides the weight is that they restrict ankle movement and so make you more prone to injury. ... Anyway, I don't think boots actually give ankle support, they just restrict movement. If you need ankle support, get an ankle brace or ACE wrap.

I've heard this a lot, but I've never seen any proof to this effect. Not saying that it's wrong, but it seems to be one of those things that more more it gets said, the more it's accepted as truth, without anyone actually knowing if it's true or not.

I will say that I do belive that boots do give extra ankle support... the high sides of a boot will help to prevent a rolled ankle. It's just simple physics. As to whether this restricts movement... yeah, I'd say that they do as that's a function of the ankle support. But does that lead to being more prone to injury? I'm not sure. In some instances maybe the extra mobility of trail runners would be a benefit, while in others the extra support and protection of the boots would be.

I've used both... I have less than great ankles so boots have been better to me, but I do think that trail runners are more comfortable. For me boots work better just because they do support my ankles and allow me to hike longer with less stress on the ankles. But if I had stronger ankles, I'd prefer runners given the proper trail conditions... they're lighter (better for the knees), and break in fast.

[Wags]

what really happens is if you wear boots a lot, then the muscles and stabilizers surrounding the ankle get no work at all b/c the boot does the work for them. then when you make a switch to wearing sneakers, the stabilizers aren't able to make the quick adjustment - this is how injury occurs. this is the same reason you should not wear a backbrace if you work at a loading dock or similar job. chances of injury when you're not wearing it GREATLY increase.

most good sports trainers will get guys out of braces/wraps asap due to this. i had a very bad ankle sprain playing football over thanksgiving. i wore an ace bandage for a few weeks, and my 1st few activities afterwards (the gym, basketball, football) but was soon instructed to take the brace off and just follow up with ibuprofen and ice. my ankle is still to this day "swollen". the tendons heal on their own and the big bone on the outside of my ankle is larger than the other one, but it's fine as far as stabilizing me.