Boot questions - Fwd blame to RAY JARDINE!!!

[couscousman]

So have just been reading Ray Jardine's book Tail life. He speaks about the advantages of hiking in sneaks as opposed to heavy leather hiking boots. It just so happens that I have a pair of Scarpa Sl's and am about to go on the AAWT over a 38 day period on oct 29. Enter Ray Jardine...! With a pack hoping to weigh around 20kg (base weight 10kg) what are your thoughts on hiking the AAWT or any multi day trip with 'mid range' runners compared to leather hiking boots?

[wayno]

i dont like the lack of support. on rough tracks i prefer ankle support
i had lowa renegade boots on teh kepler track... not a rough track at all underfoot, but my feet were killing me.
what i find is if there isnt much lateral stiffness in the sole, ie you can corkscrew them easily then the front of my feet will suffer .
you need to be pretty experienced with a loaded pack to be sure you're not going to have problems, you'd want to test out running shoes with a loaded pack on a shorter trip before you entertain such a long trip...
mid height boots are one option still gives some more ankle support and lighter than full boots but can be more supportive than running shoes if you pick the right model... you dont necessarily need a shank in the boot for support. just a bit of stiffness in the sole to support your feet. thirty odd days is a long time to go with running shoes.... ultralighters can be rabid about saving weight, good on you if it works for you but you have to be sure it is going to work for you, absolutely certain if its a long trip. even some of the lightweight boots now are actually just up specked running shoes, . with ankle support, some have stiffened soles, so you can still go light and get the support
running shoes and light boots have thinner tread though and you notice it on muddy tracks or in soft ground with the lack of traction.... and they also dont last anywhere near as long as boots with decent tread on them.

[Strider]

If I was about to embark on a 38 day bushwalk, I would be using what I KNOW works for me - not engaging in new gear experiments. Do you normally walk in the Scarpas? 37 days with sore feet could feel like an eternity if your choice proves a bad one.

[stepbystep]

If I was faced with 38 days wearing Sl's I'd jump off the first cliff I came too. There are far more comfortable boots than them.
I've been wanting some mid height non leather boots for track walking, but for such a long walk I'd have full leather boots, just comfortable ones

[couscousman]

I agree. 38 days is not place to test out new gear ideas. I have never had a a blister or any problem with the Sl's so I think I will stick with them. I will wait until after the walk until I start venturing into the world of light weight bush walking. Thank your for you responses as they gave me some fresh perspectives. Time to start training!

[Mark F]

With your pack weight I would wait until after your walk. Then get your weight down to something reasonable before trying shoes; but do try them. You will find over the 38 days that your feet will expand by at least 1/2 a size so ensure your boots will still fit - at least have some thinner sock options available even if you put them in one of your drops.Also take time to look after your feet - dry them at end of each day and apply a dab of anti fungal every now and then. Boots off at lunch time to allow feet, socks and boots to dry and air. I have seen too many people neglect this on long walks and watched them suffer for it after a few days.

I did the Canberra to Hotham section of the AAWT in 25 days (including 1 day snowed in at Grey Mare) - about your proposed pace - but carrying a base weight of 5kg and a maximum of 5kg food. I used a pair of Oboz shoes which worked well but it is really a matter of what fits and what works for you as far as brands/models goes.

[wayno]

just search on "stupid light"
people who have cut the weight of the gear they've taken thinking it will make their walk a better experience and they've suffered for it...
when i was wearing unsupportive boots on my multi day trip, my feet were so sore i thought i'd broken a bone...

[couscousman]

YES!!! thank you Wayno. I found this site by http://andrewskurka.com/2012/stupid-lig ... or-better/. He is the dude that gave that Aussie who was on Australian Story advice on gear for the Brookes Track in Alaska. Some funny stories of mistakes that he has made by going 'stupid light' during his time in the outdoors.

I think I nee to find out why I go into the outdoors, into nature? What I hope to gain from doing long distance hikes? Answers to these questions will help me take gear that fits with my aims.

[nq111]

Agree with the above - shoes may be good for some under some conditions but don't assume it is for all. And don't make risky moves now.

The scientific studies finding boots cost x energy per mile more than shoes were done by the US military years ago. I am sure they did more research. They still insist all soldiers wear boots.

[corvus]

With your pack weight I would wait until after your walk. Then get your weight down to something reasonable before trying shoes; but do try them. You will find over the 38 days that your feet will expand by at least 1/2 a size so ensure your boots will still fit - at least have some thinner sock options available even if you put them in one of your drops.Also take time to look after your feet - dry them at end of each day and apply a dab of anti fungal every now and then. Boots off at lunch time to allow feet, socks and boots to dry and air. I have seen too many people neglect this on long walks and watched them suffer for it after a few days.

I did the Canberra to Hotham section of the AAWT in 25 days (including 1 day snowed in at Grey Mare) - about your proposed pace - but carrying a base weight of 5kg and a maximum of 5kg food. I used a pair of Oboz shoes which worked well but it is really a matter of what fits and what works for you as far as brands/models goes.

G'day Mark,
Can you please elaborate on your 5kg base weight as there are some very new and older members who cannot quite understand what you mean exactly by base weight.
corvus

[madmacca]

Especially for a relatively dry walk (much of the AAWT is ridgetop), leather boots are probably overdoing things. Saving weight in the footwear department is definitely something that should be considered, as it will make your days easier and faster. Scarpa SL's come in at 1750 grams per pair - trail runners typically come in at 600-800 grams per pair - that is a significant potential weight saving. And weight in the shoes is something that you have to lift every step of the way.

However, you definitely shouldn't be tackling a 38 day walk with untested footwear. So you should only even consider switching if you have enough time between now and your departure date to thoroughly test (ie. an overnight hike) new trail runners at full load.

I disagree a bit with wayno - good training should provide sufficient ankle strength that shoes should be fine (barefoot calf raises are great for this). Where I see higher boots as important is providing ankle PROTECTION for off-trail walking or rocks, both of which you will encounter of the AAWT. (apologies wayno if this is just semantics). However, well positioned gaiters do provide a significant element of protection.

[nq111]

I disagree a bit with wayno - good training should provide sufficient ankle strength that shoes should be fine (barefoot calf raises are great for this).

I disagree somewhat with this. Pushing the line of thinking to the ridiculous extreme it is kind of like saying 'with good training, everyone should be scrambling up grade 28 rock climbs '.

Some of us are born with better structure and will never have a problem. Many of us without such good structure could probably train to be much better off. But with modern life, many with underlying issues aren't going to realistically build up strong enough ligaments etc to correct the issues. Maybe we should, but for the benefit of our hearts we should all train to be able to run a half marathon too, but it ain't going to happen.

A good pair of supportive boots means many people with less than perfect feet ankles can hit the bush with reasonable security that they won't be hobbling out, or worse, being flown out. That is probably most of us. Sure, they are heavier and slow your down somewhat, but sore muscles don't stop you altogether. Also muscles are easier to make stronger than ligament structures are to correct.

If you can get away with shoes - great - i can see the advantages. But I think it is unrealistic to dangerous to suggest that everyone should be aiming for that.

Maybe we should all aspire to climb mountains like Ueli Steck. There are clear advantages. But it ain't realistic and is dangerous to pursue for most - we carry heavier gear so more of us can safely get out there.

[jacko1956]

Each to their own but know what suits you before you start a hike like that. Bear in mind that 10kg is a lot more than Ray Jardine would carry as base weight.
I hiked the Bibbulmun in 37 days last year in "trail runners" and will hike the AT next year in the same.
My son hikes in boots and will be doing the AT with me.
I seem to have stronger ankles than him and am not at all feeling vulnerable in low cut shoes but he doesn't like the lack of ankle support.
On a wet track like those in Tassie I would still wear my runners but would carry another pair of socks to assist in keeping feet dry.

So what I'm saying is trial beforehand and make your own mind up! Footwear is the subject of endless dispute and I personally think each should do what they want and don't listen to others except to get ideas on what to try.

[gayet]

+1 jacko1956

Couldn't agree more.

If your ankles work as they were designed, use them and runners etc will be OK. If not support them with boots. Choose the weapon that suits you and that you can manage with. Other than that it is only someone elses opinion.

[wayno]

as i mentioned earlier with some lightweight boots. they are pretty light, not much more weight than trail runners since they are essentially runners with some added ankle support. and as mentioned the mid height boots offer some compromise, again lighter. and not as restrictive as full boots... would be teh way to go as a first step for someone considering changing from full height boots to runners.

[Dale]

Whilst just before a trip isn't the best time to experiment with something as critical as footwear, don't throw the baby out with the bath water and write off trail runners for future hikes. Trail runners have made my feet sooo much happier. Definitely worth a try to see if they work for you.

I see Andrew Skurka quoted in this thread to associate trail runners with 'stupid light'. So what does Skurka wear ? That would be trail runners. In his Akaska Yukon expedition he used La Sportiva Firebrand @ 28 ounces / pair when not skiing. He used these with a base weight (total weight carried excluding 'worn' clothing' and consumables ie. water, food fuel) of 18 pounds in summer. Not heavy but not an ultralight base weight either.

[wayno]

i'm guessing firebrands are reasonably supportive shoes?>
doesnt matter if you're wearing boots or shoes that are unsupportive, being boots wont necessarily make them any better, as i mentioned i had some particularly unsupportive soles in my boots. but you can get shoes that are more supportive than boots. so i'm not writing off shoes.
but it depends on your preference, some people have joints a lot more flexible thn others and are prone to spraining ankles more than others even if they try and strengthen them.
it varies with trail runners. some are stiffened to support your feet and some arent. so be aware of the difference in design in whats out there.

[Tony]

Hi couscousman,

It is a myth that boots support the ankle, they just make it feel that they support the ankle, there has been a lot of research into boots vs shoes and there is no evidence that boots (or high top shoes) stop or reduce ankle injuries.

A few years ago I did some research on boots vs shoes, this Bushwalking with Running Shoes thread has some very good debate on this issue.

Some findings

The most likely cause of ankle injuries is genetics, and if you have already sprained your ankle you are more likely to sprain your ankle again than someone that had not sprained his or her ankle before.

Correct strapping does reduce ankle injuries. (Athletes who have suffered a previous sprain decreased risk of injury if a brace is worn.)

The ankle has evolved to flex, if this flexing is reduced other injuries can occur, a boot that that does reduce ankle flex like a ski boot puts more stress on knees.

Gender does not appear to be a risk factor for suffering an ankle sprain.

Here are some abstracts and some selected paragraphs from some studies that I have read.

Prevention of Acute Ankle Ligament Sprains in Sport

Martin P. Schwellnus

Clinical studies

The factor in footwear design that has most frequently investigated is the possible role of high-top shoes in reducing the risk of ankle sprains (Petrov 1988). The results from three studies indicate that, in the absence of additional taping or external support, wearing high-top shoes does not reduce the risk of ankle sprains. Indeed, in one study, the wearing of low-top shoes resulted in a lower incidence of ankle sprains compared to high-top shoes (Rovere et al. 1988). In two recently published meta-analysises, it was also concluded that the role of footwear in the prevention of ankle sprains was not clear (Quinn et al. 2000).

In summery, although a protective influence of footwear is suggested from the results of biomechanical studies, footwear without additional support from taping and bracing does not appear to have a strong influence on the risk of ankle sprain. The potential negative effect that footwear may have on the proprioceptive function of the foot requires further investigation.


Effect of High-top and low-top shoes on Ankle inversion

Mark D. Ricard, PhD; Shane S. Schuties, PhD, PT, ATC; Jose J. Saret, MS, ATC

Conclusions: The high-top shoes were more effective in reducing the amount and the rate of inversion than low top shoes. Depending on the load conditions, high-top shoes may help prevent some ankle sprains.

This is from the introduction

High-top athletic shoes are frequently to augment ankle support because they may provide increased resistance to inversion. The increase cost of these shoes may be justified if they decrease ankle injury rates. Not all studies, however, support the finding that high-top shoes may reduce the potential for injury. Currently, consensus is lacking among researchers and clinicians concerning the extent to which high-top shoes protect the ankle from inversion trauma.

1: Foot Ankle. 1991 Aug;12(1):26-30.

Risk factors for lateral ankle sprain: a prospective study among military recruits.

Milgrom C, Shlamkovitch N, Finestone A, Eldad A, Laor A, Danon YL, Lavie O, Wosk J, Simkin A.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hadassah Hospital, Ein Kerem, Jerusalem, Israel.

In a prospective study of risk factors for lateral ankle sprain among 390 male Israeli infantry recruits, a 18% incidence of lateral ankle sprains was found in basic training. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of lateral ankle sprains between recruits who trained in modified basketball shoes or standard lightweight infantry boots. By multivariate stepwise logistic regression a statistically significant relationship was found between body weight x height (a magnitude which is proportional to the mass moment of inertia of the body around a horizontal axis through the ankle), a previous history of ankle sprain, and the incidence of lateral ankle sprains. Recruits who were taller and heavier and thus had larger mass moments of inertia (P = 0.004), and those with a prior history of ankle sprain (P = 0.01) had higher lateral ankle sprain morbidity in basic training.

1: Sports Med. 1995 Oct;20(4):277-80.Links

The role of shoes in the prevention of ankle sprains.

Barrett J, Bilisko T.

University of Oklahoma, Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, USA.

Ankle sprains are a common sports injury that can cause significant, chronic disability. Studies aimed at prevention through the use of footwear have focused on the biomechanical aspects of foot and ankle anatomy, proprioceptive input of the foot/ankle complex, external stresses applied to the joint, and shoe traction. These studies support the use of high top shoes for ankle sprain prevention because of their ability to limit extreme ranges of motion, provide additional proprioceptive input and decrease external joint stress. Despite this biomechanical evidence, clinical trials are inconclusive as to the clinical benefit of high top shoes in the prevention of ankle sprains. Further study is necessary to delineate the benefits of shoe designs for ankle sprain prevention.

Tony

[wayno]

its not jut about spraining ankles, if you walk across a slope it can be more difficult in shoes, than in boots i find, the fet are less like to slip in the shoe where the shoe sole ends up at a difficult angle and is pushed sideways round the foot.

[ollster]

It is a myth that boots support the ankle, they just make it feel that they support the ankle, there has been a lot of research into boots vs shoes and there is no evidence that boots (or high top shoes) stop or reduce ankle injuries.

It's not a myth with regards to the Scarpa SLs. They are very stiff boots with high ankle support, and they so stop twisted ankles. I know, my ankles are made of noodle. If I do my SLs up correctly, they completely prevent over-rotation. Completely. It's just not possible.

The studies might be correct with regards to synthetic boots, or lightweight leather, but not the SLs.

EDIT: still, there's no friggin way I'd wear them for 38 days, on a hard track. That would be torture. They're superb for offtrack though.

[forest]

its not jut about spraining ankles, if you walk across a slope it can be more difficult in shoes, than in boots i find, the fet are less like to slip in the shoe where the shoe sole ends up at a difficult angle and is pushed sideways round the foot.

Never found that with correct fitting runners... ever. (I use inov-8 295's)

I can only agree with most of the suggestions and would not do a 38 day walk in runners if you haven't used them before. You really have to get your feet used to them with your pack weight, not just walking with no pack.
It took me a few months but I'll never go back to boots. Slowly your ankles will strengthen and your feet get used to runners. It's a good move but you need a reasonably light pack otherwise the foot support isn't there.
I fear many people wear runners untried before on a 3-5 day walk with a 20kg pack. That's never gunna end well for you or the shoes (Yes, I did that myself).

Footwear is a very personal choice but it's definately easier walking with lighter shoes/boots.

I've done a few Kosci wilderness trips now with my runners and have not had an issue. But saying that my mates all wear boots. I must say they are all starting to eye off the runners now and lighter pack
Same for 2 NZ trips and 1 tassie trip (Only OLT but I did a lot of side trips and peaks), No issues.

[nq111]

its not jut about spraining ankles, if you walk across a slope it can be more difficult in shoes, than in boots i find, the fet are less like to slip in the shoe where the shoe sole ends up at a difficult angle and is pushed sideways round the foot.

Yeah - boots give you a hoof like a mountain goat. Shoes are more like sticky pads like a rock wallaby

[forest]

The scientific studies finding boots cost x energy per mile more than shoes were done by the US military years ago. I am sure they did more research. They still insist all soldiers wear boots.

SAS wears runners a lot now. But I know the other solders get in the poo for not wearing boots ??

[nq111]

It is a myth that boots support the ankle, they just make it feel that they support the ankle, there has been a lot of research into boots vs shoes and there is no evidence that boots (or high top shoes) stop or reduce ankle injuries.

It's not a myth with regards to the Scarpa SLs. They are very stiff boots with high ankle support, and they so stop twisted ankles. I know, my ankles are made of noodle. If I do my SLs up correctly, they completely prevent over-rotation. Completely. It's just not possible.

The studies might be correct with regards to synthetic boots, or lightweight leather, but not the SLs.

EDIT: still, there's no friggin way I'd wear them for 38 days, on a hard track. That would be torture. They're superb for offtrack though.

I was writing just this and somehow deleted the message! I wore high shoes for a little while when I was young and sprained ankles as much as in my volleys. Never had a sprain in 20yrs of 'proper' boots despite very rough terrain, packs and being tired and clumsy at times (or all the time ). In boots i stumble, rather than roll the ankle. This is a sample of one but again, the professionals who depend on this stuff (e.g. military) and have the evidence still insist on boots.

I do appreciate Tony injecting some real evidence though. I also read some studies that sole and heel cup design is the most critical factor to preventing of rolling ankles.

Frankly, i envy those that can walk with packs in rough terrain in shoes. There are clear and obvious advantages to shoes. Many of the best walkers in Australia and overseas do it just fine. But I don't believe encouraging everyone should aim for it is safe or practical. No shame in boots on the trail.

[Tony]

It is a myth that boots support the ankle, they just make it feel that they support the ankle, there has been a lot of research into boots vs shoes and there is no evidence that boots (or high top shoes) stop or reduce ankle injuries.

It's not a myth with regards to the Scarpa SLs. They are very stiff boots with high ankle support, and they so stop twisted ankles. I know, my ankles are made of noodle. If I do my SLs up correctly, they completely prevent over-rotation. Completely. It's just not possible.

The studies might be correct with regards to synthetic boots, or lightweight leather, but not the SLs.

EDIT: still, there's no friggin way I'd wear them for 38 days, on a hard track. That would be torture. They're superb for offtrack though.

Hi ollister,

Anecdotal evidence is not proof, I have a pair of SL's and I do not agree with they offer better ankle support than my low top shoes that I currently use.

Tony

[wayno]

in nz you're often traversing steep ridges or tracks that arent benched. you can spend all day with your ankles being pushed over by this terrain, yeah it depends on the fit of your shoe as to whether your foot slides sideways in the shoe but boots help remove the tension you get on the foot from walking along slopes.
i've sprained my ankle in shoes and never in boots. cant remember every coming close to spraining my ankle in a boot.
and again it depends on how stable the shoe is too...
i'd argue boots can save energy since i find my lower leg muscles dont see to have to work as hard in boots to keep my ankles from twisting too far.
personally the rougher the terrain the more likely i'll be wearing boots. but i do wear shoes if my load isnt that great and the track isnt that rough....
i find i have to think less about foot placement in boots, the stiffer and higher they are the more of a no brainer it is on a rough track... i think it takes skill and practice to use shoes exclusively with a heavy pack or on rough trails... i know so many people who've sprained ankles trail running, sure its not walking but they wer in shoes i cant thinkg of trampers on boots who've sprained ankles, yes running isnt bushwalking differnt game but it still makes me wonder. some of the most skilled trail runners i know have sprained ankles

[nq111]

The scientific studies finding boots cost x energy per mile more than shoes were done by the US military years ago. I am sure they did more research. They still insist all soldiers wear boots.

SAS wears runners a lot now. But I know the other solders get in the poo for not wearing boots ??

Yeah - again if we were all peak athletes at the the smaller positive end of the bell curve and training all the time we could wear shoes. SAS are selected for, among other things, amazing physical prowess. The other 99.9% (like us walkers who have soft ankles) were knocked out of the selection well before getting to such a profession. Plus they train hard and a lot.

The grunts who are not so genetically blessed or/and dedicated to their training 24/7 are better off in boots.

[wayno]

depends wht the average terrain was like where the tests were done as to the energy efficiency of boots versus runners. overall energy expenditure might be lower but look at mountainers why don't they wear runners??, when you're on steep slopes its easier to stay on your feet in boots

special forces are a case of their own a lot of them dont wear helmets and is that really a good idea? each to their own as to what they want to do. not to knock the ability of special forces but there may be more than one reason why people opt for the gear they do some may be founded but not necessarily all reasons...

[madmacca]

NQ111,

Apologies, I did make a pretty blanket statement, I guess. Implicit in my statement was "for a normal ankle", but you are right, everyone needs to take their individual circumstances into account in selecting footwear.

It is interesting to see elsewhere in this thread scientific studies showing previous sprains are a factor in predicting susceptibility to future sprains - which pretty much backs up your point.

You also make the point that the military enforces the wearing of boots. Well, yes, but as a former infantryman myself, I can assure you soldiers are expected to RUN through the bush under fire, go off-track rather than follow existing tracks, will come across snakes and other nasties, and deal with an enemy who may be using punji stakes against them. All of these significantly increase the risk of ankle injury from scrapes and objects, and it is this, rather than rollover, that combat boots seek to protect against. A bushwalker going at walking pace on a well-formed trail is at much lower risk of external ankle injury - if you say that individual circumstances need to be taken into account, well, the operating environment is surely part of those circumstances.

And even those with weak ankles will benefit from strengthening the ankle, regardless of their footwear choice. Barefoot calf raises will take you 2 minutes a day, every 2nd day.

Mad

[Nuts]

My 'Anecdotal evidence' concurs with Tonys 'Proof'. Tonys proof must be right.
Why not just do a few training runs, or ditch the runners if they cause grief couscous?