Forum rules
TIP: The online Bushwalk Inventory System can help bushwalkers with a variety of bushwalk planning tasks, including: Manage which items they take bushwalking so that they do not forget anything they might need, plan meals for their walks, and automatically compile food/fuel shopping lists (lists of consumables) required to make and cook the meals for each walk. It is particularly useful for planning for groups who share food or other items, but is also useful for individual walkers.Re: Boots vs Shoes?
Thu 03 Oct, 2013 3:26 pm
What's the downside of those rolling soles?
Re: Boots vs Shoes?
Thu 03 Oct, 2013 3:39 pm
I'm not sure what this even means. My Zamberlan leather boots have a fair bit of roll to their soles.GPSGuided wrote:What's the downside of those rolling soles?
The problem with most halfway options is that they are usually a jack of all trades, master of none type scenario. Dual-cab utes are another prime example, off the top of my head.
Re: Boots vs Shoes?
Thu 03 Oct, 2013 4:05 pm
I wasn't saying there's a problem, but I suppose it's easier to roll the wrong way.
But as long as you're rollin' the right way you'll move easier!
But as long as you're rollin' the right way you'll move easier!
Re: Boots vs Shoes?
Thu 03 Oct, 2013 5:38 pm
Strider wrote:I'm not sure what this even means.GPSGuided wrote:What's the downside of those rolling soles?
I have an open mind on this and given that there's no free breakfast, I was just wondering if there's a downside to these rolling soles? Any negatives to that design?
Re: Boots vs Shoes?
Thu 03 Oct, 2013 5:44 pm
Less contact at the ends?GPSGuided wrote:Strider wrote:I'm not sure what this even means.GPSGuided wrote:What's the downside of those rolling soles?
I have an open mind on this and given that there's no free breakfast, I was just wondering if there's a downside to these rolling soles? Any negatives to that design?
Re: Boots vs Shoes?
Thu 03 Oct, 2013 5:45 pm
Strider wrote:Less contact at the ends?
That's a start. I also wondered if it's less stable on uneven grounds?
Re: Boots vs Shoes?
Thu 03 Oct, 2013 7:49 pm
GPSGuided wrote:Strider wrote:Less contact at the ends?
That's a start. I also wondered if it's less stable on uneven grounds?
Remember this style of footwear is typically quite soft in the mid-sole.
Re: Boots vs Shoes?
Thu 10 Oct, 2013 9:34 am
last time I comment on this...promise...
I just read some articles on google scholar about ankle injuries and footwear and just to prove I'm not a cherry picker I am a boot fan...
Summary:
1.)Boots do not prevent ankle injuries. Wearing footwear (shoes and boots) cause ankle injuries.
Rationale: ankle injuries (sprains) are nearly unknown in those who do not wear footwear, ankle injuries do not occur because the ligaments in humans are maladapted to walking or carrying loads or walking in tasmania or anything like that. Ankle injuries occur because the brain does not receive correct proprioceptive feedback from the foot and cannot adjust sufficiently to the ground surface on footstrike. What this means is that in normal locomotion the brain has a picture of where the foot is in space and this picture is updated continually by feedback from the foot (in fact the plantar surface - the sole of the foot). Footwear interferes with this proprioception (the shoe sole interferes with nerve fibre transmission from the foot surface) so that when the foot strikes the actual torsional forces on the foot are different to what the brain anticipates (ie the foot is in the wrong position). Torsional forces overload the ankle causing ankle injury. This is exacerbated by softer soles and built up soles. Soft soles because the plantar sole of the foot loses feedback and built up soles because it increase angular momentum about the ankle pivot.
2.) Ankle high boots do not support the ankle. With the exception of rigid skiboots, boots do not have sufficient rigidity to prevent rotational forces from stretching or rupturing ankle ligaments.
3.) taping may protect the ankle. But this is surprising: elastic tape is just as protective as rigid tape. Why? because taping (like boots) does not provide sufficient angular control to prevent ankle ligament iinjury. What happens is that the tape (for it to work) must extend from the sole of the foot to the leg, so what happens is that it increases proprioceptive feedbcak to the plantar surface - the tape stretches the skin on the sole and 'tells' the brain that the ankle is inverting.
4.) a summary of the research indicates that footwear, if it must be worn, should have a low firm sole. Unfortunately the degree or 'lowness' and 'firmness' was not quantified in the paper that i drew this from.
Nothing in what I have just written is a commentary on 'shoes vs boots' per se. I will no doubt continue to wear shoes and boots - boots because of the resistance to abrasion/rockpinching not because of ankle 'support'. It's made me rethink sole depth and softness though.
I struggle to grasp how I could negotiate a sharp scree slop or talus field without boots but perhaps this is the future of footwear:
http://www.backpacker.com/editors-choic ... gear/17489
or these with a lower heel:
http://www.everythingaustralian.com.au/ ... sp?id=1146
or even these
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=8657&p=114197&hilit=five+fingers#p114197
I just read some articles on google scholar about ankle injuries and footwear and just to prove I'm not a cherry picker I am a boot fan...
Summary:
1.)Boots do not prevent ankle injuries. Wearing footwear (shoes and boots) cause ankle injuries.
Rationale: ankle injuries (sprains) are nearly unknown in those who do not wear footwear, ankle injuries do not occur because the ligaments in humans are maladapted to walking or carrying loads or walking in tasmania or anything like that. Ankle injuries occur because the brain does not receive correct proprioceptive feedback from the foot and cannot adjust sufficiently to the ground surface on footstrike. What this means is that in normal locomotion the brain has a picture of where the foot is in space and this picture is updated continually by feedback from the foot (in fact the plantar surface - the sole of the foot). Footwear interferes with this proprioception (the shoe sole interferes with nerve fibre transmission from the foot surface) so that when the foot strikes the actual torsional forces on the foot are different to what the brain anticipates (ie the foot is in the wrong position). Torsional forces overload the ankle causing ankle injury. This is exacerbated by softer soles and built up soles. Soft soles because the plantar sole of the foot loses feedback and built up soles because it increase angular momentum about the ankle pivot.
2.) Ankle high boots do not support the ankle. With the exception of rigid skiboots, boots do not have sufficient rigidity to prevent rotational forces from stretching or rupturing ankle ligaments.
3.) taping may protect the ankle. But this is surprising: elastic tape is just as protective as rigid tape. Why? because taping (like boots) does not provide sufficient angular control to prevent ankle ligament iinjury. What happens is that the tape (for it to work) must extend from the sole of the foot to the leg, so what happens is that it increases proprioceptive feedbcak to the plantar surface - the tape stretches the skin on the sole and 'tells' the brain that the ankle is inverting.
4.) a summary of the research indicates that footwear, if it must be worn, should have a low firm sole. Unfortunately the degree or 'lowness' and 'firmness' was not quantified in the paper that i drew this from.
Nothing in what I have just written is a commentary on 'shoes vs boots' per se. I will no doubt continue to wear shoes and boots - boots because of the resistance to abrasion/rockpinching not because of ankle 'support'. It's made me rethink sole depth and softness though.
I struggle to grasp how I could negotiate a sharp scree slop or talus field without boots but perhaps this is the future of footwear:
http://www.backpacker.com/editors-choic ... gear/17489
or these with a lower heel:
http://www.everythingaustralian.com.au/ ... sp?id=1146
or even these
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=8657&p=114197&hilit=five+fingers#p114197
Re: Boots vs Shoes?
Fri 11 Oct, 2013 1:03 pm
BOOTS: slow, expensive, take a long time to walk in, can give a false sense of security re: support (Richie Richardson, the brilliant West Indian batsman never wore a helmet and never got hit)(also remember, the ankle is a joint and meant to move, not be immobilised), solid, water resistant, snake bite resistant.
SHOES: light, fast, susceptible to breakdown (I once had a Valley zipped open by a snagged twig), snake bite susceptible, wet (although on some walks wet feet are unavoidable and sand shoes are much more comfortable to wear wet than boots), no walking in required. Volleys give great grip on rock.
So, horses for courses. If you're an occasional/fair weather walker, go with sand shoes. If you walk regularly, invest in a pair of full grain leather boots.
SHOES: light, fast, susceptible to breakdown (I once had a Valley zipped open by a snagged twig), snake bite susceptible, wet (although on some walks wet feet are unavoidable and sand shoes are much more comfortable to wear wet than boots), no walking in required. Volleys give great grip on rock.
So, horses for courses. If you're an occasional/fair weather walker, go with sand shoes. If you walk regularly, invest in a pair of full grain leather boots.
© Bushwalk Australia and contributors 2007-2013.