Boot questions - Fwd blame to RAY JARDINE!!!

[Son of a Beach]

I reckon you should walk in down-hill ski boots. They provide pretty good ankle support. I'm very confident of their ankle support, even though I don't have any scientific data to back it up.

Apologies if I appear to be stirring the pot, but...

This is actually a legitimate point which can be extended to other types of boots. Ie, there is a gradient of boots from those that offer virtually (or actually) no ankle support to those that clearly do (eg, it is virtually impossible to injure your ankle while wearing down-hill ski boots due to the excellent ankle support that they definitely do provide). Therefore any data that shows that there is no ankle support from boots is clearly not taking down-hill ski boots into consideration, and therefore clearly does not include the entire gradient of boots in the study that was used and therefore the results cannot be expected to apply all brands and models of bushwalking boots that were not used in the test. In fact it cannot even apply to brands/models that were used in the tests if they are worn/laced/used differently, or for different activities.

All that can be determined from such data is that the particular brand/model(s) of boots that they used for testing, in the way they were worn, and doing the controlled activities that they did, they did not appear to prevent ankle injuries.

Note that I do wear sneakers bushwalking occasionally and I even go bare feet on some bushwalks. So I'm not a boots-are-always-better believer.

(No, I don't really think you should walk in down-hill ski boots when bushwalking.)

[wayno]

someone report him to a moderator!

[Nuts]

Ski boots are agony!!!, I believe there have been ample studies suggesting the lack of ankle movement is just transferred to knees?

[jacko1956]

"Footwear is the subject of endless dispute..."
I rest my case....

[wayno]

I dispute that....

[nq111]

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.

Thanks for that but no worries - I didn't take it harshly in the first place, I just get concerned about seemingly absolute statements.

We are probably in fairly close agreement if we were discussing in anything other than these forum bytes.

And yoy are right it has to be worth trying things to strengthen weak areas. I used a wobble board with advice from a physio - i think it helped - but not enough to ditch the boots

[nq111]

"Footwear is the subject of endless dispute..."
I rest my case....

- it really is.

Can we rest on that there is a full spectrum of viable option depending on individuals? There are great, experienced walkers at both ends of the debate (not talking about myself either ). Pros and cons, pros and cons -each persons circumstances will differ.

I would agree with some that whatever works and is proven for you, test new approaches carefully and not on a month+ walk.

[madmacca]

I used a wobble board with advice from a physio - i think it helped - but not enough to ditch the boots

Yeah, a wobble board can definitely help with balance and working all the small muscles that keep us stabilized - which helps in staying upright on a rough trail.

I still use above-the-ankle boots for off-trail stuff (whacking an ankle bone into a log hidden in grass just once was enough to convince me of that), but the weight saving of trail shoes over 1.75 kg Scarpa's has me using them much of the time on-trail.

[Son of a Beach]

Ski boots are agony!!!, I believe there have been ample studies suggesting the lack of ankle movement is just transferred to knees?

Yes, I'd believe this, for sure. And that further supports the idea that some boots do provide excellent ankle support. Not bushwalking boots in this case, but if ski boots can do it, then other boots can be built to do it too.

NB: I'm not saying that other boots do provide great ankle support with any certainty. I am merely saying that we can't rule out the possibility of ankle support from all boots based merely on data about some boots in some situations.

I forgot to include in my earlier post...

Obviously data from scientifically executed studies are generally better than anecdotes. However, it does not naturally follow that the results of scientific studies are conclusive, exhaustive nor that they cover every situation (in this case, every boot, every activity, every environment). Furthermore, it does not naturally follow that anecdotal evidence should be discarded as though it were worthless.

My personal anecdotes demonstrate (to me) that the science is wrong on this one (at least for my boots, shoes, ankles and activities). Of course I can't prove it to anybody else but to me the anecdotes are quite conclusive. Similar accidents in both boots and sneakers having vastly different results and where I can feel the resistance to movement in the boot at the time of the accidents. Of course, it could be just my imagination, and that's one area where the value of scientific tests come in.

And a simple demonstration that anybody can try (as I mentioned in older topic)...

Put a good high top boot on one foot and a sneaker on the other. Tie up the laces well and sit on your dining table with your legs dangling down. Now rotate both feet around simultaneously bending your ankles in all directions. You will feel some obvious resistance to your ankle movement in the boot compared with the sneaker. This is a very easy test to do, so just try it. That resistance is otherwise known as "ankle support". I can feel it, so I'm not inclined to believe that it doesn't exist. I can't say that it's enough to prevent injuries but it's clear from this simple test that boots do provide ankle support. Even if this ankle support is negligible, it could in theory reduce a borderline-serious ankle injury to a less serious injury.

(Again, I'm not committed to any particular type of footware. I bushwalk in boots, sneakers and barefoot - depending on the situation.)

[wayno]

if you have a full leg cast then you can protect your knee as well as your ankle!!!

[Nuts]

Well, they tell me that hips are easiest to replace.

Nik, yes, I'd agree that boots can restrict ankle movement, just that it is a poor second best to stronger ankles. In conclusion, I agree with the part of various studies that support my anecdotal evidence

Maybe boots for ankle protection laced as loosely as current ankle strength allows. I also used different footwear (besides barefoot).

[photohiker]

Ski boots are agony!!!

I've had the same ski boots since about 1980 and they are one of the most comfortable boots of any kind I've ever had on my feet. I dare not replace them, but am somewhat concerned that given their age they may explode without warning.

For me, the main benefit of bushwalking boots is not ankle stability, it's ankle protection from rocks, scrapes and sticks. I generally don't use runners for that reason, Instead, I pick a model that has a 'mid' height. My latest favourite is the current Salomon Synapse. The Ambassador for this shoe is Jennifer Pharr Davis (AT Trail record hiker) who worked with Salomon on the design of the shoe, specifically to move away from the running shoe design where the weight is on the front of the foot. They call it a 'natural motion shoe' There's a video of her talking about her involvement here Very comfortable and light. This is not at all a waterproof shoe, but I see that a water resistant version has now been released...

[Nuts]

Oh yes, they Were very comfortable. Try them with loose/ stuffed knees, however,and they show exactly where the stress is transferred too.

Salomon sound interesting, my pair fell apart, may be worth a try again.. Isn't every new model 'the' answer though. I'd like the Salewa approach shoe if they would add a loose padded cuff to the top.

Last edited by Nuts on Wed 10 Oct, 2012 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Son of a Beach]

I'd agree that boots can restrict ankle movement, just that it is a poor second best to stronger ankles.

Yeah I reckon you're right. I would like to have stronger ankles. I think that all the barefoot walking that I do (not so much out bush, but around home, work, town, etc) helps with this. But my ankles are naturally quite loose, and have also had ligaments torn clean off the bone on both of them. The surgeon said the ligaments would never heal without surgery that he recommended against as it could restrict movement too much and that the muscles would eventually take over most of that work (which turned out to be true).

[photohiker]

Nuts, you're right, every new design is the answer. Where will it end?

There is a tradeoff between lighter weight materials and longevity. No lightweight Salomon is going to outlast a full leather Scarpa. I get a couple of seasons out of them usually, I think that's fair for a lw shoe with absorbent soles, it's usually the upper that dies first although the sole on my fastpackers was looking pretty grim by the time the upper started falling to bits - they were still waterproof though! I think the Fastpacker needs an update, the grip on terra firma is much improved in the Synapse.

Remember the fad for high skiboots in the '70s? There was a big increase in calf and knee breakages, wonder why we don't see them anymore? (yea, I think Salomon was leading that charge too) Strange, I can wear any Salomon shoe made but their skiboots feel like my foot is in a vice.

[justacouch]

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?

Hi Couscousman

There have been a lot of opinions (and some hard science - thanks Tony) put forward here, but as you already know - only you can assess whether runners will work for you on the AAWT. Have you considered trying an arduous overnighter (even just a quick one, as long as it has a bit of bush bashing and some heinous climbs) in a pair of runners to see how you go? Also, as a contingency there is the option of having your boots ready for someone to post to Davenport Village or Thredbo if the runners aren't going well.

I highly rate trail runners in 3 season conditions, and have used them with pack weights of 15Kg plus without a worry (never 20kg though). I find runners have better grip, allow you to access more secure foot holds because of their flexibility and it at least feels like I walk faster, and if not faster then without a doubt much easier. You do have to be more careful where you put your feet though, when you're no longer wearing 'foot tanks' (Scarpa ZG65s in my case).

I'll be in trail runners on the AAWT this year, but only because I'm fairly confident that they'll work.

[wayno]

to me trail runners are more for people who have good coordination and experience has told them they can walk without problems with them in the wilderness...
i like trail runners and the extra speed i can walk at with them. BUT on a multi day trip, one foot wrong could cost you an injury. its up to you if you think the chances of that happening are remote enough for the type of track youre going on and your experience.
personally boots give me peace of mine on a multi day trip. i dont feel i have to be quite as careful with where im putting my feet. they are more forgiving of rough terain..
just depends how much you value the extra speed and feeling of freedom wearing shoes...

[Nuts]

NQ111,

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

(I guess couscous has his answers..?)

Just to say that ^ this sort of thing along with the wobble board might be good as part of the 'between walks exercise' topic (in the absence of ready access to rough tracks).

I struggle with patience for anything routine but fwiw the exercise designed to strengthen knees (or the less used muscles) involves leaning with your back against a wall and doing squats while holding a footy (or lesser balls ) between your knees.. sliding down the wall.. Not one for the procrastinators

[nq111]

My personal anecdotes demonstrate (to me) that the science is wrong on this one (at least for my boots, shoes, ankles and activities).

Good science is almost never wrong - just the data is misinterpreted

[nq111]

Maybe boots for ankle protection laced as loosely as current ankle strength allows. I also used different footwear (besides barefoot).

Yes - i have found a certain sweet spot that is not too tight

[wayno]

Maybe boots for ankle protection laced as loosely as current ankle strength allows. I also used different footwear (besides barefoot).

Yes - i have found a certain sweet spot that is not too tight

ditto. bit of an art in getting the right tension to the boot isnt too restrictive or loose, get it right and it's great....
the goldilocks lacing tension...

[Nuts]

[quote="photohiker"]every new design is the answer. Where will it end? / [quote]
It won't will it, you can't sell bare feet, everyone has them haha

My first real runners were Adidas. They were marketed as being close as poss to natural motion. More importantly, Deek wore them

[geoskid]

get it right and it's great....
the goldilocks lacing tension...

I think you're on to something here, we should develop the idea.
The 'Habitable Zone' is the space inside the footwear. The Goldilocks Footwear is footwear that combines favourable conditions/features/materials to provide a comfortable Habitable Zone. - different for each inhabitant.

"If different kinds of habitable zones are considered (shoe shopping), their intersection is the region considered most likely to" provide comfort.
You'd probably want a goldilocks upper to go with that goldilocks lacing tension...

[slparker]

It's weird that for 99.9% of Homo sapiens timeline we didn't wear ankle length boots with a vibram sole. Sometimes we even would have walked miles with a 20 kg beast slung over our shoulders.

I thought stiff lasted boots were for crampons or edging in snow, aren't they overkill for general walking. Can't say I've ever felt the need for stiff lasted boots even when rock hopping with a 20 kg pack. Whilst I wear a boot with a stiff half last I fel it inhibits foot placement and probably contributes to musculoskeletal weakness. In saying that, a lot of my mates wear stiff lasted boots such as SLs and swear by them. It's what you're used to I suppose. Our ancestors would laugh at us I reckon.

Don't place too much credence in 'what the army does' the army wears boots for a specific purpose and you'd be surprised to know how crappy the issue boots are and how most serving soldiers tend to buy either lightweight running shoe style boots ( with a robust sole) or simple cordura /leather boots with a semi stiff last.

[wayno]

by lasted do you mean with a shank?
the stiffness of boots can cary a lot. i use boots that flex easily at the toe but a sole that won't corkscrew easily. i know my feet cope better in footwear like this than more flexible footwear.

[nq111]

It's weird that for 99.9% of Homo sapiens timeline we didn't wear ankle length boots with a vibram sole. Sometimes we even would have walked miles with a 20 kg beast slung over our shoulders.

For 99.9% of humanity, 99% of people died by 30, 2/3rds of children died by age 2, people with bad ankles didn't exist much (cause they probably died soon after a major injury) etc, etc.


Bill Gates once said that if he had been born in any previous century, he would have been the first person to be weeded out by evolution.

Modern times, modern (yes weak) people, modern responses.

[couscousman]

Wow - some really interesting have been raised here. I certainly have gained some insights into bush walking.

Nuts - I wear Scarpa Sl's because they are the only hiking boot that I have ever owned. I bought them four years ago, they have never given me blisters, they have lasted and I have never though about examining them until only now. I always thought that they were part of hiking. I took them for a 10km walk this afternoon, off track in the rain. I stood in 10cm of water for 45 seconds then walked through grass. By the end of the walk each shoe weighted 1.2 kg. As a rough calculation, by the end of the walk, they had gained 300gram each of water. Interesting.

justacouch - For all this talk I have not even tried walking in runner's!!! Why rely on other peoples information when I could be getting my own first hand information. Great point and thank you!!! After my rest day tomorrow I will put on a pair of runners and go for a walk. Good lucky with your walk along the AAWT. I hope that all the preparation is going well.

On a funny note I laugh when I see the add at the bottom of this page. For all those who are itching to get into a pair of Scarpa SL's they are 15% of from our sponsor CAMPSAVER.com - REP IT!!!

justacouch -

[wayno]

if you're using boots that heavy, then definitely avoid moving straight to trail runners for overnight trips... you'll be going from one extreme to another and you'd need something more in between in the way of footwear first to be on the safe side.
with all the support your current boots give you , your feet and ankles won't be ready to cope using trail runners with a heavy pack.

[couscousman]

Thanks wayno

I think I will go with what works for this hike - then after it will I start experimenting with my kit.

[wayno]

Thanks wayno

I think I will go with what works for this hike - then after it will I start experimenting with my kit.

good call