Boots vs Shoes?

[Scottyk]

Recent thread from a new member on boot advice nearly descended into a debate on the merits of shoes instead of boots for hiking so I thought I might start a thread where people can give there experiences and what they reckon is the better option. These days I think people are wearing trail type runners more and more.
I own a pair of Salomon XA Pro 3D and have used them for adventure racing with maybe only 3kgs on my back with no issues.
For bush walking I use a pair of Scarpa SL's and they work well for me, I feel like I couldn't roll my ankle going down hill even if I wanted to.

I guess I am firmly on the side of good stiff boots for carrying a pack on rough tracks up and more importantly down hills. I had a walking partner who wore trail shoes with ankle braces for a 3 day trip in the WOJ and struggled with blisters and going down hill with his pack was near impossible due to struggling with ankle support. He now owns a pair of Zamberlans and now has no issues with his ankles.

So why is it we see more and more runners out there on bushwalking tracks these days?

[GPSGuided]

So why is it we see more and more runners out there on bushwalking tracks these days?

To me, it's a simple case that many of the tracks here are pretty well maintained and are perfectly suitable for runners. I see that as a good thing, as it'll let more people enjoy the outdoors without much expenditure on purpose equipment. As for shoes or boots, well, that varies so much pending on the person, the construction and characteristics of the footwear involved. For me, a pair of hiking shoes is very comfortable and light on general day walks. No problem with that. Boots are reserved for more technical and difficult walks where weight and protection are needed.

[mArt]

For me the choice depends on the consequences of a serious ankle injury.

I'll choose runners when I'm carrying little to no weight and I'm able to make a phone-call
if I'm in difficulty. Then its boots for multi-day walks; walks with heavy gear and
walks where I cant use the phone if I break my ankle.

[nlt82]

Good thinking Scottyk.
will watch the debate with interest.

From The said new user

[neilmny]

My preference is a boot, I like the ankle support mostly.

[Giddy_up]

When walking in the bush, I like a boot. It's just peace of mind and part of the 5 P's for me.

[Scottyk]

For me the choice depends on the consequences of a serious ankle injury.

I'll choose runners when I'm carrying little to no weight and I'm able to make a phone-call
if I'm in difficulty. Then its boots for multi-day walks; walks with heavy gear and
walks where I cant use the phone if I break my ankle.

I agree with this
Why then do we see people on remote mountain track, days from help? I think this is stupid and irresponsible

[Joomy]

So why is it we see more and more runners out there on bushwalking tracks these days?

Because your experience and your friend's differ from that of many people.

I wore boots on my first tassie trip and they were excellent in terms of grip and comfort, but damned heavy and very clunky. I noticed the weight on every up hill step. Then again I was carrying 20kg so they were probably the right footwear for me.

Now that I've lightened my pack so that 15kg is the absolute max I would ever carry on a similar trip and 10-12kg would be average, I find that sturdy trail shoes are sufficient in terms of support (obviously there is less) and what they give up in that regard they more than make up for in terms of lightness and agility. The best thing is that compared with wearing heavy boots I just find I have a lot more energy and better endurance as the day goes on.

But like everything else you take hiking it's a compromise. If shoes are sufficiently comfortable but lighter why wouldn't you use them? And if shoes are not giving enough support or comfort then obviously they don't work for you with your current weight. In that case you can either get more substantial footwear or reduce your pack weight to the point where lighter footwear becomes sufficient. Length of trip affects things of course, but for my next Tassie trip I still won't be taking boots -- probably a nice sturdy approach type shoe instead.

As far as ankle support goes, the more weight you carry the more likely you are to roll an ankle, so cutting weight addresses this issue as well. Obviously the risk is still there but you don't have dodgy ankles already then I think low-cut shoes are generally sufficient. I think the overall stability of the shoe contributes as much to protecting ankles as a cuff does. I've also seen a lot of boots with very, very flexible cuffs that I doubt would do much to stop an ankle rolling.

[gayet]

I walk in open sandals - Teva Dozers.

I walk in these because I need my ankles to be able to move which they cannot in boots. But I wouldn't suggest anyone else should walk in sandals unless they have tried it and know what they can walk comfortably in.

They are light weight, very free draining, don't freeze or get stiff in the cold, and with a pair of sealskin waterproof socks my feet are warm and generally dry. Grip is generally good, and with a flexible sole, I find my feet are much less bruised and tired than clumping along in stiff soled heavy lumps of whatever.

[Scottyk]

I walk in open sandals - Teva Dozers.

I walk in these because I need my ankles to be able to move which they cannot in boots. But I wouldn't suggest anyone else should walk in sandals unless they have tried it and know what they can walk comfortably in.

They are light weight, very free draining, don't freeze or get stiff in the cold, and with a pair of sealskin waterproof socks my feet are warm and generally dry. Grip is generally good, and with a flexible sole, I find my feet are much less bruised and tired than clumping along in stiff soled heavy lumps of whatever.

What sort of walks do you in sandals Gaye?

[GPSGuided]

I walk in open sandals - Teva Dozers.

Comes with training doesn't it? Many natives walk bare feet and can cope better than walkers from more pampered parts of the world. Not surprised it can work.

[MrWalker]

I walk fast and need a lot of flexibility in my ankles, so a boot is just too clumsy for me. I have worn boots occasionally but hate going far in them.

However, I know people differ in their preferences and I would never try to persuade anyone to switch away from boots if they are comfortable with them. But I ignore anyone who tells me my shoes are not suitable for long walks. I do use good quality shoes from Paddy Pallin, not just runners.

[Steddie]

I think GPSGuided is on the money here. While I personally have a preference for a traditional boot, the decision on what type of footwear to use should take multiple factors into account. They're pretty obvious and I'm probably preaching tot he choir, but still:

Weight
Last/fit
Height - shoe, mid, traditional or military height?
Flexibility - including where the boot flexes - does it flex near your toes, like your foot, or further back? A good boot or shoe will be supportive and fairly stiff until around the ball of the foot. Poorly designed footwear tends to flex most mid-foot. Old school boots like the Scarpa Trek Pro won't flex much at all until broken in.
Cost
Water-proofing vs. ventilation
Appearance - very few people openly admit it, but it is a factor.

The way these factors interact is just as important. A heavy boot isn't necessarily supportive (think workman's boots).

[madmacca]

I guess I am firmly on the side of good stiff boots for carrying a pack on rough tracks up and more importantly down hills. I had a walking partner who wore trail shoes with ankle braces for a 3 day trip in the WOJ and struggled with blisters and going down hill with his pack was near impossible due to struggling with ankle support. He now owns a pair of Zamberlans and now has no issues with his ankles.

Ok, let's strip one issue out of this debate right now. Blisters are pretty much down to how well the last the shoe/boot was made on suits YOUR foot, and this is going to differ from brand to brand, individual to individual. The choice of shoe v. boot has nothing to do with it. (Obviously socks, preventative treatment, etc are also factors).

And the best way to prevent rollovers/sprains is to strengthen your ankle. And calf raises are a very effective way of doing this (doing them barefoot works the muscles in the foot as well). Strengthening the ankle works regardless of whether you are wearing shoes or boots, have "weak" or "strong" ankles. Calf raises, squats and planks should be part of any regular bushwalkers exercise program.

I tend to see ankle 'protection' more in the line of external protection against rocks and sharp sticks, than internal protection against rollovers.

Shoes are now my preferred footwear on the grounds that they are much lighter (and less fatigued legs means less likelihood of rolling an ankle in the first place) and drain better. But boots still have a place in my gear cupboard for areas where I am likely to encounter scree or going off trail where there are rocks and logs hidden in long grass, or icy slushy mud.

In terms of grip, on areas of tilted rock slab, I find the greater flexibility of shoes allows me to maintain the full sole in contact with the rock. In muddy areas, I find the greater stiffness of a boot allows a firmer 'bench', especially when going around the side of a hill.

[GPSGuided]

Ok, let's strip one issue out of this debate right now. Blisters are pretty much down to how well the last the shoe/boot was made on suits YOUR foot, and this is going to differ from brand to brand, individual to individual. The style of footwear itself has nothing to do with it. (Obviously socks, preventative treatment, etc are also factors).

You have just complicated your argument.

[Strider]

I guess I am firmly on the side of good stiff boots for carrying a pack on rough tracks up and more importantly down hills. I had a walking partner who wore trail shoes with ankle braces for a 3 day trip in the WOJ and struggled with blisters and going down hill with his pack was near impossible due to struggling with ankle support. He now owns a pair of Zamberlans and now has no issues with his ankles.

I tend to see ankle 'protection' more in the line of external protection against rocks and sharp sticks, than internal protection against rollovers.

Shoes are now my preferred footwear on the grounds that they are much lighter (and less fatigued legs means less likelihood of rolling an ankle in the first place) and drain better. But boots still have a place in my gear cupboard for areas where I am likely to encounter scree or going off trail where there are rocks and logs hidden in long grass, or icy slushy mud.

Sounds like you need to invest in a pair of gaiters.

[gayet]

What sort of walks do you in sandals Gaye?

Walls of Jerusalem - 7 days Little Fisher R to LongTarns, LT to Dixons, last night at Wild Dog. Carrying all the camera gear.
Arthur River, Tarkine Falls, Heaven - 7 days again with all the camera gear
Pine Valley for a few days, South Cape , Mt Field, ART

Day walks to week long efforts. Camp shoes are down booties.

[forest]

Again, hasn't this debate been smashed heaps of times.
I like runners, never rolled an ankle, Trails, offtrack, anything. No issue but I have typed this every time. A heavy pack (over 12-14kgs) and runners will not probably end well unless your well conditioned to it. Hasn't the ankle rolling argument in regards to footware choice been tested to be not true ?? (i'm sure someone has posted a link before)

I feel for the majority of new walkers and people that don't spend a lot of time on there feet conditioning them, boots maybe a better choice as "generally" there are less issues.
If you want to walk faster and carry a light pack, wear runners and get used to them.

I'm sure there's plenty of weight for either side of the argument. You just have to get used to runners, wear them straight up with a big pack and you will have pain. I'm not talking rolled ankles here, more foot pain from the minimal cushoning most trail runners have. Some do have a lot more that others though.

One thing you will see is most light designated trail runners like the inov - 8 trailroc's etc have a very low heel height. I read somewhere that this is to minimise the chance of you rolling an ankle and your heel is a close to the trail as possible (also the whole barefoot thing blah blah). Kind of makes sense to me. Big high heeled boots would have your heel what 40mm off the trail (i'm talking from the ground to the top of the inner sole). That's a fair bit of leverage against your ankle I guess compared to the shoes I wear which are around 15mm all up.
I do have a very nice pair of Zamberlan 230 Crosser GTX boots which are very light and feel a good balance between runners and big stiff soled boots. Haven't had the time to do some serious work in them yet but I think they will be promising.

I spent some time recently in my big stiff soled boots training on a very rough steep local trail, first time in the big boots in ages.
Nearly fell over a few times. I'm just used to super grippy runners that bend and flex with the terrain. Like I said it's what your used to.

I must have good strong ankles though as I've tweeked mine over plenty of times in runners but they just bounce back without an issue.

[Scottyk]

What sort of walks do you in sandals Gaye?

Walls of Jerusalem - 7 days Little Fisher R to LongTarns, LT to Dixons, last night at Wild Dog. Carrying all the camera gear.
Arthur River, Tarkine Falls, Heaven - 7 days again with all the camera gear
Pine Valley for a few days, South Cape , Mt Field, ART

Day walks to week long efforts. Camp shoes are down booties.

Gaye that is impressive. I'll know who it is if someone walks towards me with sandals on in Tassie!

[Scottyk]

I guess I am firmly on the side of good stiff boots for carrying a pack on rough tracks up and more importantly down hills. I had a walking partner who wore trail shoes with ankle braces for a 3 day trip in the WOJ and struggled with blisters and going down hill with his pack was near impossible due to struggling with ankle support. He now owns a pair of Zamberlans and now has no issues with his ankles.

Ok, let's strip one issue out of this debate right now. Blisters are pretty much down to how well the last the shoe/boot was made on suits YOUR foot, and this is going to differ from brand to brand, individual to individual. The choice of shoe v. boot has nothing to do with it. (Obviously socks, preventative treatment, etc are also factors)

That issue was never part of the debate, but well done stripping it out anyway

[Son of a Beach]

Depends on the walk. Most of my walks involve rough tracks plus at least a bit of off-track walking, so I usually wear boots. On short easy walks I go barefoot. Occasionally I wear sneakers, but its usually either barefoot or boots for me.

Note that there is some debate as to whether the ankle support of boots is sufficient to truly prevent any significant ankle injury. Of course the protection against being poked and scraped by sticks and rocks is obviously better than with shoes. I think they probably work better with gaiters too, but I've never tried gaiters with low cut shoes, so I may be completely wrong there.

Shoes dry quicker, but boots rarely get wet inside at all if of good quality and fitted with good gaiters. I can wade through rivers for several paces in water higher than my boots without getting any inside them. So again, it depends on what kind of walking you're likely to be doing and what your personal preferences are.

In the end, it's all a matter of personal preferences. Just try them both, in a reasonably safe set of walks, and see how you go.

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

I did the overland track with a mate who was from the lighter shoes are better brigade. He is an established runner and only missed out on police special forces because of a back strain.
He bought trail runners similar to his running shoes and wore them in extensively.
By the end of day three (although we did do about 25km with the Oakleigh summit in ankle deep water), his feet were cactus. Heavily blistered, sore ankles from rock hopping without enough support.
This guy is one tough nut, and to see him struggling made me realise trail runners are not suitable for the majority of people on long, wet walks.
My feet (and those of our other mate who bought Scarpas and didn't wear them in one day) didn't have so much as one blister.
I think trail runners are a fairly unique piece of gear, suitable for the very experienced only in a set of well defined conditions.
Inexperienced walkers or long multi day walks with poor terrain and heavy loads should be the realm of boots IMHO.

[Bluegum Mic]

Im with Son of a beach. It depends on the walk...hence why I have several pairs of boots. Im in the unfortunate position that one of my ankles cant ever be fully stabilised no matter how much training and exercise I do (ive completely ruptured ligaments plus put a 10cm tear up between the tib/fib...it was a doosy). So for me its boots/mids only. I have my full grain leather NF Jannus for mud/serious off track. I have teva daleas for walks on easy well maintained trails (they're too slippery/shallow lugged for mud and steep terrain). I have salomon xa pros for fire trail runs aaaannnd I now have a pair of aku approach boots which are a happy medium between the tevas and the NF boots. Once I'm back on the trail more I have a feeling they'll become my full time boot. They are a nice compromise that can cope with most. I used to always walk in scarpas but since having bubs my foot shape changed and dont suit them any more. They are great boots however.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2

[slparker]

I did the overland track with a mate who was from the lighter shoes are better brigade. He is an established runner and only missed out on police special forces because of a back strain.
He bought trail runners similar to his running shoes and wore them in extensively.
By the end of day three (although we did do about 25km with the Oakleigh summit in ankle deep water), his feet were cactus. Heavily blistered, sore ankles from rock hopping without enough support.
This guy is one tough nut, and to see him struggling made me realise trail runners are not suitable for the majority of people on long, wet walks.
My feet (and those of our other mate who bought Scarpas and didn't wear them in one day) didn't have so much as one blister.
I think trail runners are a fairly unique piece of gear, suitable for the very experienced only in a set of well defined conditions.
Inexperienced walkers or long multi day walks with poor terrain and heavy loads should be the realm of boots IMHO.

i first did the OT in sep 1993. i came across a bloke wearing no shoes at all and just had a sheepskin jacket. His feet were fine but it was my first long walk so my feet were sore in my high leather boots with vibram soles. Whose anecdote wins?

the aborigines used parts of the OT as routes from the Ouse valley to the ochre mines near Mt Vandyke. pretty sure they didn't have Scarpas. Pretty sure they did it for 40, 000 years - that's one hell of a control group if you want to start studying whether boots are 'necessary'.

i htink we can replace 'necessary' with 'preferred' in most arguments of this nature. Unless someone can correct me the only time stiff high boots are 'necessary' is if you want to stick crampons on them. Whether boots are worn seems to be a matter of preference only, and if they're more comfortable for you well that's great - but applying some sort of 'if you don't wear boots you're crazy or putting yourself at risk' rule is not based on evidence.

Before I get flamed... yes i prefer boots on remote or off track walks. But ther're a preference, not a necessity.

[climberman]

Much happier since switching from boots to runners years ago. Can't imagine going back.

[GPSGuided]

the aborigines used parts of the OT as routes from the Ouse valley to the ochre mines near Mt Vandyke. pretty sure they didn't have Scarpas. Pretty sure they did it for 40, 000 years - that's one hell of a control group if you want to start studying whether boots are 'necessary'.

Whilst that's a true statement and the natives have largely done it all on barefeet, but we don't really know whether and how they suffered through that 40k years. We do know they have a much shorter life expectancy though.

[slparker]

Hi GPS,
well life expectancy for hunter-gatherers (in comparison to modern man) is predicated on many factors, not least food availabity, predation, warfare, hygiene, infectious diseases, accidental death, genetic diseases, lack of access to modern medicaine, lack of access to modern public health measures, .....

My point being that in the hierarchy of lethality the non-wearing of footwear probably isn't right up there. Are you seriously suggesting that if lack of access to footwear was a serious impediment to survival that aborigines would have survived the hostile terrain and climate in tasmania (and Australia generally) for millennia?

[forest]

his feet were cactus. Heavily blistered, sore ankles from rock hopping without enough support.

Again I would say whatever his professional backgound might be it sounds like he wasn't conditioned to runners with a big pack.
Jogging with minimal weight IMO does very little towards the elimination of feet/ankle issues with a pack on.
Don't even get me started on rock hopping without enough support. Larapinta was testing but okay in runners and I'd wear them again. That's one pretty rocky walk.
Lots of people wearing runners out there. Most doing well, some just silly with huge packs, worn out shoes and feelin the hurt.......

trail runners are not suitable for the majority of people on long, wet walks.

That's an interesting comment and opposite what I have experienced. I wonder if his runners didn't drain that well. Some runners drain really well, others like the more padded Salomons take ages to dry out once they get soaked. Generally my feet feel pretty dry after about 30 minutes of no more water. I have found the injini toe socks to be great for faster drying as the whole sock is in contact with skin.

On the Rees Dart Track last year in NZ I wore my Inov - 8 runners. I did manage to keep dry feet for the first 40m before having to cross a steam
That pretty much summed up the rest of the walk. Day one for the first half is mostly along a boggy cattle flat valley with a few large streams to cross thrown in the mix.
Interesting thing was each night in the hut I was the only walker to not have some type of blisters or very wrinkled feet. Sure mine were wrinkled to some extent but nothing like the rest of the walkers wearing some type of "waterproof" boots. Downside to waterproof boots with any major watercrossing (I'm talking more than 10-15m wide and over knee height possibly) , even with gaiters your boots are just being turned into buckets as there is little escape for the water. At least my runners let the water out pretty fast.
I did meet some kiwi's (Locals) who had drilled holes in the soles of there big boots to let the water out. Had a great chat to them on the Rees Saddle about it. Personally I couldn't imagine forking out $300-$500 on top line boots, getting home and taking to them with a power drill for additional..... drainage. Hmmm how would I explain that to my wife

Each to there own, I'll gladely wear either on a actual bushwalk inplace of sitting here typing a response on a keyboard

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

Hi forest

I think you are right, in that his shoes didn't drain particularly well. I doubt my boots would have drained any better (in fact, much worse) so it must have related solely to how much water was getting in.

While it depends a lot on the terrain, when walking on wet trails, I just don't think there's anyway a below ankle high runner can keep water out like an above ankle length boot.

He certainly was accustomed to them, and had done extensive training with heavy packs. I can only assume his shoes took on vastly more water than our boots and over the week long walk with a heavy pack, he paid the price.

Not saying I wouldn't use runners, but like SOAB said, it depends. I run nearly every day in runners, and twice a week carry my 15kg son up and down Mt Lofty in all types of weather - also in runners. The weight saving alone makes a big difference.

But would I personally wear then on a multiday hike with a heavy pack, absolutely not! For those who manage to make it work in those conditions, all the best to them!!

[forest]

Hi forest
While it depends a lot on the terrain, when walking on wet trails, I just don't think there's anyway a below ankle high runner can keep water out like an above ankle length boot.

Fair call. But this is a key point. Anyone wearing runners is crazy to even think that they have a hope in keeping the water out.
What is needed is a shoe that will drain well and dry quickly. Goretex runners.... fff they have to be a marketing fad right ??? Couldn't think of much worse.

Of course the protection against being poked and scraped by sticks and rocks is obviously better than with shoes. I think they probably work better with gaiters too, but I've never tried gaiters with low cut shoes, so I may be completely wrong there.

I can attest that gaiters do work with runners. Again not a huge amount of point in them being a goretex or event gaiter. I have worn OR Rocky Mountain high gaiters over my runners in NZ and Tassie, worked a treat.
Recently I purchased a pair of One Planet RFG gaiters. These being heavy canvas stay up by themselves with the tops open so breathability is excellent. On a recent 12hr rogaine they were great, darn they got pushed through some junk too. They looked new after a tub. Protected my lower legs very well. Sad the same couldn't be said for my arms.......