Boots - help finding previous discussion re high vs low

[wayno]

boots are a safe choice of footwear to start with for people starting out in bushwalking..
you dnot have to go out and get heavy full grain leather full height boots, they are mainly for those going scrub bashing with heavy packs or off trail in harsh rocky country or alpine environs
there are some good lighter weight boots . you can go mid height boots that still offer some support and some ankle mobility. try them as well as full height boots. you can get lighter thinner leather boots or synthetic boots. you dont have to have gore tex boots, in hot environs you dont want gore tex. if you're in dusty environs get a boot that itsn going to let the dust through the outer layer..
synthetic boots are generally lighter , you wont need boots with shanks in them they are for trips with really heavy packs or people with foot problems... ideally a sole tht doesnt corkscrew too easily in your hands if you're walking with an overnight pack but still flexes at the toe

http://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/ ... boots.html

[nq111]

You could try the best of both worlds http://www.swedeo.com/TarsalLok.htm

But I reckon just let her get what she feels comfortable with - which is probably going to be boots that look like 'real' hikers

[andrewa]

Wow, thanks for all that. I was actually hoping for an argument in favour of low cuts, as that's what I would choose for much of my walking, but the forum has opened my eyes, as I now realise that both styles have their uses.

At the end of this discussion, my feelings are that daughter 3 is better with boots for her introduction to bush walking. Having walked in both, I do personally believe that low cuts are better for most bushwalking, except in rough rocky terrain ( eg fly fishing remote NZ bouldery rivers). I use nth, dependent on where I'm walking.

Thx all.

A

[wayno]

yup it may well be after having boots she may never want them again, but to me its like riding a bike with training wheels to start with, rather than get injured early just put up with it an progress on to the next step later...

[madmacca]

To me, the main reason for higher boots is EXTERNAL protection, rather than rollover protection. In the bushwalking context - against sticks and rocks. In the context of ice hockey that someone mentioned, the risk of pucks, sticks or other players travelling at high speed would make me want a pair of higher boots. If I'm travelling in areas of scree, or off trail with steep slopes and sticks/logs hidden in long grass, I'll go with higher boots, because the risks of smacking my ankle into something are higher.

But in general, I find that the lighter weight of shoes to make a big difference to comfort over a long distance. Shoes are often more than 1 kg lighter than boots, and that is 1 kg you are not lifting with EVERY step. Not having your legs fatigued actually means LESS risk of injury. I also find that the greater mobility of shoes gives me a better 'feel' for the surface, and I can usually place the full sole on the ground for better traction.

The best way to protect against sprains (regardless of the style of footwear), is to strengthen your foot and ankle muscles. Barefoot calf raises are one of the best ways to do this.

I also find that mesh shoes drain much quicker. Even after a creek crossing, my feet are dry in 30-40 minutes, whereas high boots are a bugger to get dry once wet.

Put me down as a passionate convert to shoes, although I still use boots in some circumstances.

MM

[ryantmalone]

Having walked in both, I do personally believe that low cuts are better for most bushwalking, except in rough rocky terrain ( eg fly fishing remote NZ bouldery rivers). I use nth, dependent on where I'm walking.

Thx all.

A

Using my first pair of trail runners this weekend at Feathertop, and after testing them in the lead up, I'd even go so far as to use them on rocky terrain. Very VERY comfortable shoe, with a ton of protection against what you walk on.

Each to their own though, boots would be a good starting point for anyone.

[ryantmalone]

Just got back from a trip to Feathertop.

In simple terms, if I had a choice, I'd go boots. I'd use runners again, but I'd seriously consider the terrain that I am walking on.

In a nutshell, a fail safe choice is the boot, but if you wanted to try something different that either may or may not work for you, then try trail runners.

I was thinking about it a bit, and I think that it comes down to the overall flexibility of the trailrunners to move over varied terrain that makes it very easy to get your foot in an awkward position resulting in a twist, and yes, that happened numerous times on this trip, to the point where I was starting to become quite concerned, as I had a few doozies that had me hobbling for a few minutes.

In comparison to the traditional boot, which is designed to be a rock solid and grippy surface that plants on the ground, rather than moulding around it. You can either plant your foot, or you cant. At least, with the boots that I've been using most of my life.

So, I think that in saying that, the argument about being more likely to twist your ankle in trail runners is less to do with a lack of support in the ankle, but more to do with the type of sole in the shoe, and how well it works with the type of terrain you are walking on.

Not to say that using trail runners is a bad idea, I just think its an individual choice, and one that must be compared with that of using boots in order to make an informed decision.

[southbank]

Caffin has something to say about ankle support here:
http://www.bushwalking.org.au/FAQ/FAQ_Footwear.htm#Ankle
For what it's worth I agree with him. I'm sticking with my Dunlop KT26's

[roysta]

Mr Caffin is very knowledgable but he isn't god.
This is a very "personal" issue.
I hate boots and will only wear them when I absolutely have to, but that doesn't mean I fail to recognise situations can vary so much from trip to trip.
You have to know what works for you.
As for KT 26s, hate the *&%$#! things, Volleys were good, once, now I prefer a grippy shoe and there are plenty of good ones around.

[southbank]

Agree, it is very personal. Love my KTs in all sorts of terrain (except mud!)
On the subject of volleys, I now use them as a wading shoe when bushwalking/fly fishing, cuts some weight down in the pack.
A mate & I where in NZ in December, he fished everyday in some big NZ rivers wearing volleys

[russ752]

Excellent discussion on boots here http://www.bushwalking.org.au/FAQ/FAQ_F ... .htm#Light
It's been a long long time since I've worn boots bushwalking. In my opinion it's a vested interest by stores to sell you big, heavy and expensive boots so you can carry all their big, heavy and expensive gear they flog off to the unsuspecting public. I mean really, who needs expedition style equipment in Oz?

[Son of a Beach]

who needs expedition style equipment in Oz?

I'm not sure what that question means. But I suspect that the answer is: The people in Oz who are doing expedition style bushwalks.

[corvus]

who needs expedition style equipment in Oz?

I'm not sure what that question means. But I suspect that the answer is: The people in Oz who are doing expedition style bushwalks.

Never mind expeditions some of us just prefer boots to runners/sandshoes for our walks in rocky scrubby wet and muddy conditions not to mention snow !!,perhaps we should have a survey to see how many of us do wear boots even on a weekend stroll ? despite the advice from R Caffin
corvus

[corvus]

Pondering on the assertions that sandshoes/runners are suitable for all of our walking conditions, so as a skeptic I would love to see evidence(photos) of sandshoes/runners in a nice wet deep snow stroll over a couple of days with or without snow shoes and how did you feet feel especially if tenting with an overnight freeze
corvus

P.S. I am a dedicated Leather boot wearer

[wayno]

yes. deep mud in shoes.. even with gairters is harder to stop the mud getting in, there isnt as much overlap with shoes as there is with gaiters. on rough tracks by feet are in better condition with boots than with shoes, i have to expend less energy stopping my ankles rolling or compensating for the more flexible shoes, you can stand on anything with some solid boots with less effort when its really rough, ie non stop rough rocks, tree roots, boulders, mud, vegetation so thick you can't stand on the ground,, i dont have to agonise over foot placement as much with boots i put my foo down and i don't have to compensate for it wobbling like it can with shoes

[corvus]

As an adjunct to this thread I wonder what sort of footwear do members wear on a day to day basis ?
Before I retired I wore quality leather dress shoes changing for each day , weekends when strolling I use full leather boots I now wear daily a lightweight boot with ankle support ,change each day (yes have seven+ pairs),so together with wilderness wear merino socks I have very happy feet and no stench
Look forward to feedback.
corvus

[matagi]

As an adjunct to this thread I wonder what sort of footwear do members wear on a day to day basis ?
Before I retired I wore quality leather dress shoes changing for each day , weekends when strolling I use full leather boots I now wear daily a lightweight boot with ankle support ,change each day (yes have seven+ pairs),so together with wilderness wear merino socks I have very happy feet and no stench
Look forward to feedback.
corvus

At home, predominantly barefoot, sheepskin slippers when it gets really cold.
For work, flat soled leather shoes with cotton socks.
Casual, leather "boat shoe", no socks in spring/summer/autumn and leather desert boot style with cotton socks in winter.
For formal occasions, leather pumps of staggering heel height with pantyhose/stockings.

For bushwalking, I have a very nice pair of leather boots with ankle support (Merrills) which I wear with merino wool socks.

[gayet]

I wonder what sort of footwear do members wear on a day to day basis ?

At home :
- bare feet OR
- warm socks OR
- sheepskin boots depending on the weather
- trail runner types around the garden

At work :
- low heeled pumps OR
- mid heel boots OR
- 3 to 4 inch stilleto's depending on mood or meeting requirements.
- Heel height changes at least every second day, to keep lower spine moving freely

Walking:
- regardless of terrain, TEVA Dozer open sandals with SealSkinz socks
- Feathered Friends Down booties in camp

[Miyata610]

As an adjunct to this thread I wonder what sort of footwear do members wear on a day to day basis ?
Before I retired I wore quality leather dress shoes changing for each day , weekends when strolling I use full leather boots I now wear daily a lightweight boot with ankle support ,change each day (yes have seven+ pairs),so together with wilderness wear merino socks I have very happy feet and no stench
Look forward to feedback.
corvus

I too used to wear quality leather business shoes five days a week, until my retirement nearly twenty years ago. I always had multiple pairs so a single pair never got used two days in a row. Much better for the shoes.

Nowadays I wear steel capped slip on boots around the farm, and high boots when working in the bush. In my case Scarpa mountaineering boots with a very rigid sole. They suit the work I do.

In snow I wear a hard shell plastic boot, even more radical, but they work well with snowshoes and crampons and they don't freeze solid overnight.

To try to dictate what is the "right" boot for someone else is just plain wrong. Our circumstances, and feet, are all very different.

[nq111]

Mr Caffin is very knowledgable but he isn't god.

Well put. He is always worth reading and provides great logical thought progression but doesn't mean he is always right (though I think he injects some common sense and gets close on most topics)

Bare feet and thongs around home for me, business shoes for work. Always boots for serious walking (pack and/or off-trail).

[andrewbish]

Caffin has something to say about ankle support here:
http://www.bushwalking.org.au/FAQ/FAQ_Footwear.htm#Ankle
For what it's worth I agree with him. I'm sticking with my Dunlop KT26's

I have been trying out a pair of KT26s. Light and comfortable. However, the tread wore down really quickly so that they slide around a lot and have scant protection from rocks. Will not be getting another pair.

[Spartan]

When it comes to boots/footwear, whatever is comfortable and provides adequate support is usually best. Most people probably won't carry more than 25-30kg in their packs on a given trip. So if one's ankles are reasonably strong, one's walking location doesn't resemble Mt Doom, and one's pre-trip conditioning adequate, low to mid-height trail shoes would probably work just fine. Heavier loads, more rocky terrain, and/or colder conditions; however, call for something a little more robust (i.e. a boot that is Scarpa SL-esque).

AS for what I wear on my hooves, most days: for work, Danner 'Acadia Desert' boots; for running, Merrell 'Barefoot Gloves' (both off-road and on-road versions); around the house, nothing; for casual wear, a pair of Scarpa low-cut brogues (I've had them for almost 20 years, and I don't think they still make them). When I head bush for fun, a mix of Scarpa SL's (the older model), Vasque Manta's (mid-height GTX), and (believe-it-or-not) Kathmandu Drysdale shoes. Socks, m-e-r-i-n-o.

All the best,

Ian

Last edited by Spartan on Thu 10 Jan, 2013 11:15 am, edited 5 times in total.

[wayno]

a young gent died recently in the south island, experienced trampers remarked his shoes were inappropriate for the terrain he was travelling on, they all had boots, the coroner agreed.

[quicky]

a young gent died recently in the south island, experienced trampers remarked his shoes were inappropriate for the terrain he was travelling on, they all had boots, the coroner agreed.

Since when are coroners experts on footwear?

[wayno]

corners take the advice given by experienced people to arrive at their conclusion

[north-north-west]

The last three walks I did in Tassie were NE peakbags: Barrow (at dusk, from the lower carpark), Victoria and Arthur. All in Columbia walking shoes. Faster, lighter, less effort to walk, more manoeuvrable than my usual leather boots.
But.
I skidded on loose gravel at one point and overextended the ankle. Still limping. And it would not have happened in boots, because they simply don't permit that sort of ankle extension.

Yes, I know it's just anecdotal evidence, but it's still fact. You can roll an ankle in boots, you can even twist it. But you can't overextend it, and that's the one kind of ankle injury to which I'm subject.
Which, apart from hating walking in wet, soggy shoes, is why I will still be doing 95% of my walking in boots.

[wayno]

i've done permanent damage to my ankle from over extending it in shoes, i've loset flexibility in it, and i'm loosing more flexibility in it by the year as the amage in my ankle encourages more boney growth, i'll eventually need an operation... its stuffed up my entire gait on teh right side of my body, agravating knee injuriees and causing hip problems, anyone for shoes?

[Spartan]

Hi, Wayno.

Injuries such as you've described are always a very real possibility for hikers, and no doubt a real bummer to have to deal with. Still, I've spent a reasonable part of the past 20 years wearing heavy packs with work; I'm now currently 45 years old, and I still choose a walking shoe over a boot eight out of ten times (if my pack weight is less than 30kg, and the conditions are mild enough).
Shoes certainly aren't the best fit (pun intended) for everyone, but they still have a place in hiking.

All the best,

Ian

[quicky]

who needs expedition style equipment in Oz?

I'm not sure what that question means. But I suspect that the answer is: The people in Oz who are doing expedition style bushwalks.

Never mind expeditions some of us just prefer boots to runners/sandshoes for our walks in rocky scrubby wet and muddy conditions not to mention snow !!,perhaps we should have a survey to see how many of us do wear boots even on a weekend stroll ? despite the advice from R Caffin
corvus

...that would be an interesting survey for sure!

I was on the boot side of the fence up until about 2 years ago. Nowadays...
- hiking 3 season +/- light snow & hurricanes : Inov-8 TrailRoc 245 minimalist trail runners, really thin synthetic sock, maybe Dirty Girl gaiters
- hiking snow: as above but with mods (Ingenious or Horizon Outlast socks, +/- GoreTex sock & 40Below Shorty overboots) http://www.40below.com/products_detail.php?ProductID=6
- Mountaineering: Raichle or Asolo AFS 8000's

I appreciate Roger's opinions, and do regard his knowledge and capability quite highly...I think half the time it's a matter of interpreting his quirky sense of humour . My own decision to move to runners was not borne from Roger's opinion alone, rather, a well-informed decision from a great many forums, threads, people's experiences and trial and error....and more importantly, understanding my own capabilities.

Boots are, for the better part, far more functionally simple than trail runners. Apart from changing out sock configurations, there is not much else to modify when conditions change. Boots are boots, you put them on...they protect you from most things. Trail runners do also have that functional simplicity, however that window is narrower. Many people who wear runners however, don't simply slap on a pair of runners and set off irrespective of conditions. Some do regardless, and if that works for them, that's fine...this group are a minority. Others, and often the majority, have a 'system' of layering according to their tailored regime.... allowing for the greatest freedom depending on the anticipated conditions. And quite simply, the rewards are awesome.

1. I can feel the breeze between my toes on a warm day
2. I don't worry about hot spots, cause there simply aren't any
3. I don't worry about hot feet, cause I simply walk through puddles...irrespective of depth...ahhhh....the coolness....can you feel it! Plus, refer to point 1.
4. I don't worry about wet feet, cause they dry pretty quickly
5. I can certainly attest to "a pound on the feet is equivalent to a pound on the back"...so much more nimble in runners
6. I have a new appreciation for the ground beneath my feet...irrespective of terrain...I am more attentive, I have improved proprioception, I feel more connected with the hike (fluffy I know...but true) <insert Ohms here>
7. I can actually feel my feet becoming stronger, and more responsive.

To me, trail runners are so awesome, that we should have National Trail Runner Day.

This isn't a stab at you Wayno at all....but all this hullabaloo about coroners agreeing to inappropriate footwear (because someone told them so)...even experienced hikers, means nothing really IMHO. How can you value one experienced hikers opinion over another really (a generalised question)?...and I say this with the utmost respect to coroners, and all people's opinions for that matter. It wasn't the footwear that was inappropriate, it was the hikers ability (or inability) to execute his choices correctly and safely - there is a big difference. I know some Triple Crowners who hike in Chaco sandals...through snow, rainforest, desert....conditions that often exceed that of NZ for example (and yes, I'm a big fan of NZ and everything it offers... I simply love the place). Yet their footwear is appropriate for them, and who has the right to tell them otherwise....and they are as highly regarded as you can get in some instances. Good decisions are based on one's known capabilities... based on a set of conditions. It's got nothing to do with the shoes. It's so easy to get bogged down in gear-slamming argument, but it's not about the gear at all..it's about the person. Yet...the arguments are endless...and go round and round.

At the end of the day, I totally agree with Corvus...it's just about preference...HYOH....whatevs.

Last edited by quicky on Thu 10 Jan, 2013 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Spartan]

Quicky,

I wonder if the NZ Coroner's finding was that the poor chap died because he wore shoes rather than boots?

All the best,

Ian