Bushwalking with running shoes

[Tony]

(NB: This topic was deleted some time ago, and has been recovered from backups. The many offending posts for which the topic was originally deleted have been removed or edited. The dates/times for the recovered posts are not as originally posted. Some pictures may also be missing. Sorry to all for the inconvenience. - Admin)

For some time now I have been contemplating switching from boots to runners to bushwalk in, I do a bit of running and to counter injury I usually purchase two pairs of running shoes every six months, I now have cupboard of running shoes that are in very good condition for walking but are not the best for running. The running shoes that I use are size 12, 3E width New Balance 857/858, which have a reasonably good gripping chunky sole.

Over the last twelve months I have done some day bushwalks on tracks with my running shoes and found them to be much more comfortable than the Scarpa boots that I normally wear but I have been hesitant with using my old New Balance shoes for off track walks.

Last Friday I joined a Canberra Bushwalking Club group that where planning a day walk into Mt Namadgi which is into one the most remote areas of the Namadgi National Park here in the ACT, I have done a fair bit of walking into this area and I know it is in some of the tough country, 500 meters an hour is common walking speed in this area, there is a lot of fallen timber, fire re-growth, very abrasive granite rocks and bogs/swamps. All of the other walkers on Friday used boots and also used heavy-duty gardening gloves or riggers glove to protect their hands, something that I will be doing in the future.

I am a very cautious person and the decision to walk in runners was not easily, I even took my Boots to the start of the walk just in case I changed my mine.

I as it was a nice day and the rain was predicted for later in the afternoon when we most probably would be on a track I decided to go with the running shoes, I used some cotton sports socks and some knee length gaiters. The walk started off going through some old farmland, which was easy walking and still had some frost on the grass after about 2 k we arrived in the forest. Through the forest we followed a creek up to a place called Big Creamy Flat, during this stretch my feet got wet from crossing some swamps but surprisingly they dried very quickly, after Big Creamy Flat we started to climb up the side of Mt Namadgi, a lot of this was through some thick fire regrowth and up through boulders where we had to wedge our hands and feet between rocks. The exit route was a lot of very steep down hill through some of the thickest scrub on the walk. The gaiters took a little bit to get the adjustment right to stop the heal strap from coming off. The rain came but only was light, we did not have to put our rain coats on. We travelled 22.7k all up in 10 hours and due to some very good local knowledge by the leader we avoided most of the thickest scrub which reduced our expected 12 hour walking time.


The good bits.

I found the running shoes had excellent grip on the Granite rocks.
Noticed they where much lighter on feet and felt fresher at end of a very hard days walking.
Feet did not get as hot as when wearing boots.
Socks dried quickly when wet.
Good feel of the ground.
At end of trip did not want to get running shoes off straight away as I do with boots.

Not so good bits.

Feet where dirty as the Runners let through some dust.
Toes touching end of shoes and became a bit sore.
Kicked a few fallen trees, which I felt more than thick boots but this was not much of a problem.
Soles of feet slightly sore but even when wearing boots this has happened to me on long walks.
On some loose dirt I slipped a bit but no more than I sometimes do in boots.

Conclusion

At the end of the day my feet where slightly sore and where still a bit sore the next morning, some of this was because my shoes while fine for running where slightly too small for bushwalking especially for downhill walking, my next runners that I will use are slightly bigger and wider 4E size and this should not happen.

I really enjoyed the lightness of running shoes and the feel of the ground under my feet.
And I have read that feet can get used to this extra feel and stop becoming sore.

At least for non-winter walking I am going to continue to use runners for walking and I plan to use them for my next overnight walking/fly fishing trip, which will possibly be next weekend.

Tony


Running shoes and Scarpa boots

My dirty running shoes after the walk

[whiskeylover]

Hmmm, interesting Tony.
I have gone the other way and probably wouldn't consider going back, except maybe for day walks and easy tracks. For years I walked in sandshoes because I couldn't afford boots. They had good grip and fit me well and I didn't know any different so I would have sworn they were fine - even walked in deep snow in them with a pack on. But having worn Scarpas for the last ten years I find my feet are less sore with boots and less tired at the end of the day. The shoe experts informed me that getting boots with a more rigid sole means that less effort is required to push your foot up through the rest of the motion with each step, as when the ball of your foot meets the ground the rigid sole pushes your foot upwards with less effort.
The weights are coming down so the old argument of them being heavier and making you more tired doesn't really wash with me - I would maybe consider getting a pair of the newer ones that are like a cross between a boot and a sandshoe. But I do like the fact that leather boots last so long - they're like old friends - I struggle to start using the new ones because I'm always so comfortable with the old. The punishment mine get would mean that sandshoes would very soon wear out - you should see the toes and sides of my Scarpas - they get a lot of scratching - probably mostly from rocks, boulders etc.
The other important thing for me was that when I got boots I was amazed at my new found confidence with grip - no sandshoes have ever provided me with the same confidence in not slipping.
In Tassie where I have done most of my walking I also find that mud gets into sandshoes even if you've got good gaiters, whereas my feet often stay dry for quite a while in the boots until I have to step in a big mudhole, creek or it's just plain hot and no matter what you're wearing your feet would be wet from sweat.
So, each to their own but I'm sticking with the boots.

[Tony]

Hi Whiskeylover,

thanks for your views. As you finished off each to their own when it come to foot wear.

have gone the other way and probably wouldn't consider going back, except maybe for day walks and easy tracks. For years I walked in sandshoes because I couldn't afford boots. They had good grip and fit me well and I didn't know any different so I would have sworn they were fine - even walked in deep snow in them with a pack on. But having worn Scarpas for the last ten years I find my feet are less sore with boots and less tired at the end of the day. The shoe experts informed me that getting boots with a more rigid sole means that less effort is required to push your foot up through the rest of the motion with each step, as when the ball of your foot meets the ground the rigid sole pushes your foot upwards with less effort.

For a start I am not using sand shoes but high quality running shoes and I run 30-50k per week mostly on rough tracks, my feet where no more tired than if I wore my Scarpa's, I have done 24k in my Scarpa's and I could not wait to get them off, I have done 35 k in a day in my runners and my feet where tired but ok, to me the best part of wearing boots getting them off. But that said In some conditions, boots do have some advantages, like in snow, as for wet conditions no matter how or with what I treat my boots with they always end up leaking so wet feet happen any way.

The weights are coming down so the old argument of them being heavier and making you more tired doesn't really wash with me

This argument does not wash with me in any way, my Scarpa's weigh 1203.3 grams per boot including custom orthotics, my running shoes weigh 540.5 grams each including custom orthotics that is a 660 gram weight saving per foot, if you walk 20k at 1m per step how much extra weight has been lifted, I will let you do the calculations. I do agree that some boots are getting lighter but good quality boots are still heavy, some of the lighter boots look like they would not last longer than my runners and they are still expensive and are not available in wide enough sizes.

The punishment mine get would mean that sandshoes would very soon wear out

I have plenty of runners still suitable for walking

In Tassie where I have done most of my walking I also find that mud gets into sandshoes even if you've got good gaiters, whereas my feet often stay dry for quite a while in the boots until I have to step in a big mudhole, creek or it's just plain hot and no matter what you're wearing your feet would be wet from sweat.

I would agree that on some muddy walks in Tasi, I probably use boots but for now where I am doing most of my walking I do not encounter much mud and I am going to still expore using my old runners. I might for winter try water proof lined shoes.

Tony

[Earthling]

I would agree that on some muddy walks in Tasi, I probably use boots but for now where I am doing most of my walking I do not encounter much mud and I am going to still expore using my old runners. I might for winter try water proof lined shoes.

Tony

Im a convert of 'runner' style shoes now as well. After years of wearing Zamberlans and Scarpas, the lightness of shoes, the feel of the track through your shoes (feel more connected to the earth) and the no weary feet at the end of the day, all convinced me it was the way to go.

One could try waterproof socks in wet, muddy conditions. Ive used goretex in shoes before, but if you have rub points in your shoes(toes and heel for me) get goretex shoes that have extra lining/protection on the outside at these points. Stops leakage in then.
Sealskins have had some baaad raps on line, whilst berghaus I think it was and some other big name brands have favourable review from users about their goretex socks.

Many good quality walking shoes also have stiff soles which negate whiskylovers soft sole argument. However, many of the cheap runners/walkers have soles a baby could bend in half...I runaway from them...shoes that is....

Heres a link I posed the question up in:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1279

[Ent]

Um?

The religious debate has relight on the footwear issue I see. I too use expensive runners "Brooks Beast" but in my case very rarely do I run them "flat" instead the new and "improved" models wear out the inner in the heel so the plastic support makes short work of a sock. With the old model I could get 1000 km while the new barely make 500km. The sole and the rest of the shoe is near perfect so Brooks are right about their carbon wear areas being good. Traction in the wet, lets not go there!

Basically the three reason I wear a boot is for
1. Ankle support, never twisted an ankle badly in a boot but done some pretty nasty twists in a shoe.
2. Waterproof as a decent boot can be a gumboot up to quite a depth, especially tiptoeing with size 49 Scarpa's SL.
3. Bullet proof construction. If a pair of runners implode then I can hobble home but spending two days nursing them in the bush not my idea of fun.

Yes going along the East Coast beach walking I am in runners or sandals but say heading up to Mount Ironstone no. Would runners last? More than likely but a solid soled boot such as the Scarpa SL means for me no tired arches when carrying a decent pack.

The market is trending for softer bushwalking boots. My walking companion started with Hi Tech which because of the immediate comfort factor straight from the box and lower price tag, but $220 is not that cheaper. It was not my boot so I avoid getting involved in a footwear discussion with the other sex. After ten kilometres the plastic half loops had stopped working and finally after about forty kilometres on the clock lug let go with another one not being too far behind. This performance vindicated my prejudice.

On of the advantages of buying locally rather than over the internet is you can take poor products back and Paddy Pallin accepted that they had failed and were amiable to issuing a credit on a pair of Scarpa Treks Pors that cost $299. The normal Trek at $249 would have been great but was not in the right size. The lesson on "soft" boots was reinforce by another walker that destroyed a pair of another band from Mountain Design during a five day walk. He said It was touch an go if the makeshift repairs would have held. His Scarpa SL are the same age as my original ones and despite many ten days walks over rough country are still going with him on a twenty plus day bush walk from the West Coast heading to Hobart.

It is personal choice on ankle support and taking the risk on using something out of its designed tolerance but it is one my rather limited experience has shown not to be a good thing. Sure you can do as humans have done from the beginning of time and limp home but for me it is just one risk that can so easily be avoided. As for ambling along a beach or a defined day walk track then yes you will probably see me in a set of runners but not in the rough stuff.

Cheers Brett

[Tony]

Thanks earthling and Brett,

For sharing you experiences, it is all very interesting.

Last night at the Canberra Bushwalking Club monthly meeting, a club member who is a podiatrist gave a talk, he is and a keen bushwalker, mountain climber, rock climber, he is also into into canyoning and bike touring, in light of the discussion going on in this forum I found the talk very interesting .

The talk was called "Looking after your feet"

Here are some of the main points that I could remember from the talk.

Pronation, is a natural action for a foot, underpronation (supination), and overpronation are also natural.

He spoke about the importance of using the correct shoe/boot for the type of activity that you are doing on the day.

Boots are not better than shoes for stopping sprained ankles, it is a fallacy that they are and if anything they are worse, the higher support just makes you feel like they do. Wide sharp edge boots and shoes can cause injury as they can give bigger angle for foot to twist.

Hard soled shoes or boots are OK in the right situation but not for every situation.

Flexible shoes take a bit to get used to but are better for foot health.

In some cases stiff sole boots can cause repetitive strain injuries.

Orthotics are over subscribed, new correctly fitting shoes or boots usually can fix the problem.

Shoes/boots can wear out from the inside as well as the outside, replacing old shoes/boots with new shoes/boots regularly is better for foot health.

Walking or running long distances on hard flat surfaces are bad for the foot, as it is puts repetitive strain on joints.

lighter shoes or boots are better.

The most common injury to the feet are blisters, the second is sore knees.

I know some forum members who read this posting will disagree with some points that I have written but I have only reported what I heard last night.

Tony

[Robbo]

Thanks for the report, Tony.

I personally find that much of what you have written to be true. I wear boots when walking almost all the time, but have moved to light weight ones as I found the more heavy ones made my knee joints quite sore. I am still experimenting with this, but have minimised most of the soreness by this method - I have also found that hydration has some implication in respect of soreness as well.

I will continue to wear lightweight boots - such as Raichle Scout or MD Kanangra - even though they do not last as long with heavy packs (+20kg) and in off track walking. Maybe its just stubbornness, but I do feel that they offer more protection and support.

Thanks for your thoughtful and thought-provoking, comments, Tony

Regards

Tony Robinson

[Son of a Beach]

Boots are not better than shoes for stopping sprained ankles, it is a fallacy that they are and if anything they are worse, the higher support just makes you feel like they do. Wide sharp edge boots and shoes can cause injury as they can give bigger angle for foot to twist.

Thanks for this report Tony... it's all interesting for discussion.

However, I don't think that the above statement is entirely true in all situations for all people. My ankles have been saved by the high support in my boots on multiple occasions. Much lesser strains on my ankles while wearing shoes without such support have caused the ligaments to be torn right off the bone completely, never to grow back (according to the doctor). I know that if I had been wearing boots on BOTH of those occasions (yes it happened to both my ankles at different times), then it would not have caused serious injury. How do I know that? Because I've done exactly the same thing both before and after the injuries while wearing boots with support and did no serious damage while wearing the boots.

I'm not against people wearing any particular type of footwear, but to say that 'if anything [boots] are worse' than footwear without ankle support in terms of stopping ankle injuries is really stretching things, in my opinion, and I think we'd need a lot more independent evidence to support it. I know from experience that is most definitely not the case for me.

Maybe I'm just abnormal, and have a bizarre walking style that is better suited to boots.

Of course, there are two aspects here, and your podiatrist didn't mention which he was talking about (at least not that I can tell from your post). Did he mean that you are no less likely to stumble/mis-step/lose your footing and find yourself in a compromising position without boots, or did he mean that if you're already started to mis-step/stumble/lose your footing, and just reached the point of no return, then being without boots is no worse that wearing boots for what is about to happen in the next half a second?

These are two very different things of course. My own experience has proved to me that once I've lost my footing, and am definitely going to put huge strain on my ankles, the boots are without a doubt a good protection from serious injury. As far as which type of footwear is more likely to cause you to stumble/lose your footing, that's a different matter altogether, and would be very difficult to prove one way or another, and likely different for each person.

Which of these was he actually referring to?


PS. There are, of course, other reasons for choosing a preferred style of footwear. If ankle support was the only factor, we'd all be walking in something like ski boots (downhill skiing boots), in which it is virtually impossible to damage your ankles, but would be exceedingly uncomfortable for walking.

I think that everyone would agree that downhill skiing boots provide fantastic protection for your ankles. Surely high top leather boots done up tightly are somewhere in between runners and ski boots in this regard? In fact, if I wear my boots and dangle my legs while sitting on a bench, I can feel that it is more difficult to move my ankle than with sneakers. This is because the boots provide resistance to movement. So there can be no doubt that some resistance is there. Whether this resistance is going to help in preventing ankle injuries surely depends on how much strain is boot on the ankle at the time, and the more resistance, the more protection. The lesser the resistance, the more lesser the mishap that could cause an injury.

[lexharris]

For me the choice of footwear would depend not only on terrain but also the weight being carried. I generally carry a pretty heavy pack, often starting at over 35kg for long walks (before I get set upon by the lightweight brigade, let me say that I like my photography and @8kg of that is camera gear). There is no way I would wear anything but the best boots for extended trips in country like SW Tassie carrying that kind of load.

[corvus]

Here goes my two bobs worth.
1. Why do the Armed Services issue Boots when they could save bucket loads issuing Runners
2. Why do all serious European Alpine Walkers wear Boots
3. How do you keep a runner on your foot when you have just dipped it in knee deep sucking bog
4.Try six or seven Hours in wet snow with runners (bad enough with boots)
5. How many hours do you really spend on strengthening your ankles
6. I love a good debate and Boots Full Leather are the only way to go here in Tassie

I think we could save debate (would be boring) if we were more specific as to where we wear Runners when B/Walking and in what season.

[Tony]

I also have thought that my boots have saved my ankles on occasions.

The podiatrist did not go into too much detail as why boots did not give better support as the talk was only one hour and was mixed with slides from his extensive travels both overseas and throughout Australia including two winter OT crossings and the Kokoda trail in shoes. I did check with him after his talk if I had heard correctly about boots not saving ankles and he was adamant that he was correct, when we where interrupted and I could not get more details, I will do some research on the topic.

I am off walking/flyfishing for two days with my 6 kg + food pack, I will discuss more about boots later.

Tony

[Earthling]

Has anyone with bad 'ankle strength' tried wearing sneakers for the better weight reduction etc and used strapping tape to support their ankles?
Strapping tape when applied correctly, will do more to support the ankle then what any leather walking boot I have seen and tried will do.
Best of both worlds...

An interesting sidenote on reflection after reading what the podiatrist had to say (which I mostly agree on): I found once my Scarpas and Zamberlan Leather Hiking boots were roughly 1 year old (everyday use when backpacking Scotland etc) the ankle support is greatly weakened, meaning the leather became quite loose around the ankle support area.

[Tony]

After the comment ' that boots do not stop ankle sprains any more that low top shoes do' by a Podiatrist who gave a talk about foot care at my last Canberra Bushwalking Club meeting, I have spent the last week researching the web to see what I could find out.

I typed 'boots vs shoes, ankle sprains' into google search engine and came up with many articles and research papers that talked about this issue.

Many of the articles spoke about that boots are better for avoiding sprained ankles, but I felt that this was a personal view as the articles not actually have any hard data to support what they where claiming, A lot of the articles where from boot manufactures and shops. After delving deeper into google and refining my search a bit I found some research papers that have looked into High top shoes (boots) and low top shoes and there effects on ankle sprains. I could not find any research projects into boots vs shoes with respect to bushwalking but there are several studies with basketball players, American foot ball players, soccer players and one comparing army recruits wearing boots and three quarter length basketball style shoes.

I am not sure if these results from studies into ankle injuries from sport and military training can be compared to what happens while bushwalking, my opinion is that it probably does go close.

Here are some conclusions, abstracts and some selected paragraphs from some studies.

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.

Some other information about ankles

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.

Athletes who have suffered a previous sprain decreased risk of injury if a brace is worn.

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

My conclusions

The above abstracts, conclusions and paragraphs is only a little part of what I have read on this topic and on the evidence that I have read my conclusion is that studies have show that it is inconclusive that Boots are better than shoes for lowering the incidence of sprained ankles for sports which bushwalking can be considered part of.

Tony

[whiskeylover]

Hi Tony,
Thanks for doing all that investigating of the research. I know that takes quite a lot of time and energy, aside from having to analyse what is useful and legitimate research and what is not valid due to small sample size or researcher bias.
Your results are interesting but not really a surprise to me (Nik may disagree).
However, I actually do not wear boots for the ankle support, although I have had one ankle injury where a boulder fell on me and broke my tibia and fibula. Oh, and a severe hockey bruising injury when younger. I have never sprained an ankle in my nearly 39 years. Maybe some people just have genetically stronger ankles or maybe childhood activities are the key, who knows? But I will continue to wear boots for the less tired feet, less mud, scrub and other things in my shoes, less wear and tear on rocks etc, confidence to walk through, up, down or into almost everything. I also never get blisters - I wear a pair of thin liner socks and a thicker pair of socks all times of the year. I don't want to make accusations but I believe many non-boot wearers do more environmental damage by trying to avoid boggy parts of the track etc., especially if they are inexperienced (eventually they work out that you can't keep your feet dry anyway). In the end most people are going to have to find a balance between what they find most comfortable, what they can afford, and what they think will keep them safe or give them grip etc. etc.
By the way when I said sandshoes way back in this thread I meant running shoes - I've always called them that - Tasmanian colloquiallism?
Anyhow thanks for the research. Maybe the next search is for the tiredness of the feet issue? Happy walking whatever the footwear.

[Robbo]

Thanks for the work Tony...

A lot of the articles where from boot manufactures and shops.

As someone who currently involved in research - doctoral studies in Experiential Education - I would suggest that any research be viewed with skepticism unless you know the purpose of the research and whose interests are being filled, pecuniary or otherwise.

Another point to consider is that studies to do with basketball or football have little bearing for this discussion as they are non-load bearing activities. If you look as boxing or wrestling shoes you get a very different picture.

If I am rock-hopping on a rocky scree then firm soled walking shoes are the best. But if I am carrying 15 to 20 kgs it is a different story - maybe we should all be under 10 kgs walkers Tony

Tony Robinson

[Son of a Beach]

That's a lot of effort you're putting in there Tony - Well done. I think the summary from those papers, in my understanding, is something along the lines of...

Biomedical testing (eg, the foot-dangling test that I mentioned earlier in this topic) is that high top shoes do indeed restrict ankle movement and therefore do provide some ankle support. However, the studies did not find out conclusively if this made much difference to the incidence of ankle injury.

Each to their own, I reckon. For whatever reasons. The main thing here is that people are aware of both sides of the story, so that they can make their own informed decisions.

For myself, I will continue to prefer boots for most bushwalks (for ankle support as well as the reasons mentioned by Robbo), but will still walk barefoot occasionally (at the risk of injury, which is why I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else).

[Tony]

Hi Whiskeylover, Tony and Nik,

Footwear is a personal preference and I am not telling anyone that they have to wear shoes, I am just pointing out that there is some evidence that boots do not protect ankles from sprains which goes against the common belief that I read all of the time that wearing boots do protect ankles from sprains. I feel that this is important information that should be out in the public domain.

Robbo

As a non foot care specialist or academic I know that I am pushing the boundaries with my above posting, it was always in the back of my mind that an academic or health care professional might take issue with the posting.

I would like to disagree with you on Basketball and football not being a weight bearing sports. In several of the studies that I read the military study was mentioned alongside the basketball and football studies. Basketballers and footballers run, running is a weight bearing sport. A 100kg+ basketballer jumping in the air to slam dunk when he lands, I consider to be weight bearing on ankles, and probably more weight bearing than a 75kg walker with a 20kg pack. Swimming is a non weight bearing sport.

I am having morning tea on Sunday with a sports medicine specialist from the AIS (brother inlaw), I will ask him what his views are on boots vs shoes.

Good luck with your PhD. as I work with PhD. students I am fully aware of the hard work and sacrifices that is required to obtain a PhD.

Tony

[Earthling]

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

Well, Im glad thats cleared up.

[sirius Tas]

Hi All,
As a Surveyor for FT for 36 years prior to retirement, I can say that as part of their OH&S requirements the wearing of high ankle leather boots was mandatory as it is significantly safer than any alternative. Having spent those years walking over every type of terrain imaginable in some of the harshest environment here in Tassie....I had only suffered from one bad ankle strain. I must stress that boots do need to be laced up properly to give the proper support as the designers intended. I too have looked at wearing runners for shorter 'track only' walks...but when it comes to any type of rugged terrain I'll always wear my leather boots....so I'm with corvus here...100%.....after all....I certainly wouldn't like to be stuck on top of Ironstone Mountain or any other part of Tassies plateau for that matter with a badly strained ankle. Yes....my feet get hot too...no question...even after all these years...but good quality socks....preferably the woollen 'Explorers'....helps significantly.

[Tony]

Hi Sirius Tas,

Thankyou for your views, in some research papers that I read it is thought that wearing stiff soled boots and shoes can do damage to feet and this was certainly talked about by the Podiatrist that spoke at the club meeting. I have done some hard walks through some tough country in shoes and had no problems with my ankles (Tasmania is not the only place in Australia with tough walking conditions). A lot of people bushwalk Tasmania in shoes and have no problems, I have seen some, the podiatrist has done three winter walks in Tasmania in shoes and many other walks in Tasmania in shoes with no problems, he showed us some pictures from his Tasmanian walks.

My point is that there is no clear evidence that wearing boots stops ankle sprains as is commonly thought.

If any other forum menbers have any evidence that wearing boots does stop ankle sprains I would like to see the evidence.

Tony

[Taurë-rana]

Interesting discussion. I've no evidence, just personal comments - I hurt my ankle badly last year doing gymnastics (in bare feet on a sprung floor). The only thing that got it better was rest, but I now feel more comfortable and supported in boots when on rough terrain than in running shoes (which I live in otherwise). I've actually gone for mid weight boots without a steel shank so I think I have the best of both worlds! Fairly flexible, grippy sole, but they feel like they provide good ankle support - my ankle aches less at the end of the day walking in the boots than in sneakers. I am a bit concerned about the durability of these boots though.
I knew mainlanders who would buy a pair of Dunlop Volleys for their two weeks walking in Tassie, and swear by them. Shocking to those of us who grew up here, but it worked for them.
Interestingly there is a similar debate for babies who are learning to walk - shoe shops tend to push the more rigid shoes, some podiatrists say that flexible, light footwear is better.

[Nuts]

What about ankle protection, from rocks and stuff- surely a valid plus for boots on many tassie walks, perhaps why many find the idea of shoes odd?

[Tony]

Hi Nuts,

Ankle protection from rocks could be a valid point, where I do most of my walking as well as rocks we also have a lot of dead wood lying around and when wearing shoes there is a possibility of more knocks on the ankles, I have not noticed this to be much of an issue but then I am usually careful where I put my feet.

Tony

[Tony]

I had morning tea with my sister and brother in-law, Professor Kieran Fallon who is Head of the Sports Medicine at the Australian Institute here in Canberra.

I asked him his views on boots vs shoes with respect to ankle sprains, his reply was that there is no evidence that wearing boots reduces the incidence of ankle sprains over wearing shoes, he also added that for initial sprains that using tape and or braces shows no reduction in sprains but he went on to say and this is for Nik that there is evidence that taping ankles and or wearing ankle braces can reduce the risk of recurrent sprains. I then asked him if wearing boots where better for recurrent sprains and he said no.

Tony

[Son of a Beach]

There's been some very interesting information in this topic so far, so thanks for bringing it forward. The main idea is that everyone has enough info to get the full picture and make up their minds about what's suitable for them.

Tony, do you have any links to all the information you quoted from? That would be really handy.

[Tony]

Hi Nik,

Here are some links, I did not bookmark some and I am having problems finding them again, I have some in PDF form and I will try and PM to you.

Tony

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ub_ ... #PPA263,M1

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=LgC ... t#PPA32,M1

http://ajs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/6/753

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

[sirius Tas]

Hi Tony,

Wearing boots is traditional here in Australia and I have worn boots for many years and will still continue to do so if I consider the conditions require boots,

Your above statement says it all. What we're saying here is that in Tassie possibly 90% of the time...conditions do require wearing boots. It's also just not a matter of 'perceived' ankle support either....but a combination of things like...waterproofing, mud resistant, abrasion and scuff resistant when on sharp rocky outcrops also leech resistant...which are quite prevalent down here. Have just tried my gaiters on with my runners...they cover the runners by barely 1-2cm...which when walking would give no protection for leeches at all...yet alone sticks etc sliding under them and into the side of the ankles etc.
Having just done some coastal walks from 2.5 to 9.5 hrs duration...while I did wear boots more out of habit...it was quite apparent that I could easily...and should have worn my runners...as the tracks were well formed plus a lot of beach walking. So there's no doubt that there is a time and place for wearing runners...it's just that for the other 90% of the time I'd certainly consider boots more practical and wouldn't consider anything less.
So for me on most other coastal type walks....runners certainly the go....but definitely go with boots on the other more arduous walks.

[tasadam]

OK A lot has been said here and I read most of it.
I don't see the initial comment as argument provoking, more a point of view from a member on choice of footwear.
If people want to walk in sand shoes / runningshoes / dunlop volleys, they are welcome to do so. Others may frown on that - fine. You get that.
There is a place for non-boots. For me, that place is not "bushwalking in Tasmania".
I am not going to be critical of the choices or comments of others here. I can only comment fairly on my own experiences so that is what I will cover.
I will confess I actually took a pretty good pair of sand-shoe (colloquialism)(spelling?) type shoes on an overnight walk to Lake Myrtle / Mt Rogoona.
While I walked with my Scarpa SL's, I tried the runners around camp without a pack. I was unpleasantly surprised at how little stability / grip / comfort I was offered.
Even just walking around the shore of Lake Myrtle I rolled my foot.
Shoes promptly packed away and sticking to boots.

I use custom orthotics in my boots. They work well.
I use two pair of socks. Always worked for me so no reason to change.
I often feel my boot sucking in a bog hole and knowing that if it were a shoe, it would have come off at thte bottom of such hole.
I am sure there are many walks that you can do in such shoes mentioned that this will not be a problem - as has been said, it's about "conditions".
I believe there is a lot in getting the tension of laces correct on your boots - Nik's experiment with rolling the ankle around with a boot on will have significantly different results if the laces are done at a diffrent tension.
On a recent extended walk, I found something that worked well - putting my boots on once I am up, tying them up, and then doing morning tasks around camp - breakfast, pack camp, bog, whatever. Then when it's time to fit the gaiters and head off, adjust the tension of the laces. Quite often, the first tie is just a bit loose, and a small change can make a big diffrerence to the comfort of the foot and the support of the ankle - a fine balance and one I am very happy with.
If I do head off and after 5 or 10 minutes things don't feel right, it is important to stop, pack off, gaiters off, and take the time to adjust the laces. It will make a big difference at the end of the day.

I heard of a young couple walking a day in front of us on this recent walk, they left Melaleuca heading for Scotts Peak before we got there.
Talking to the fellows looking after the Orange Bellied Parrot bird hide, they were "most concerned" for them. He had to lend some duct tape for her to hold her sand shoe together - he was wearing blundstone boots, and she was wearing sand shoes. People we met along the way told us about them - it had been noticed.
There may be a place for sand shoes, but many Tasmanian walks including the South Coast track in the condition it was in last week certainly is not one of them.
My deepest mud hole was all of my leg. That's a long way to dig to retrieve a shoe that will likely come off in such a hole. Boots won't.
As I said, I'm fine for people to wear sand shoes if they want to - that's fine as it won't bother me.
My concern is for those who get mis-information or don't get the full story (or perhaps don't find this forum?) and go tackle walks like the south coast track in runners or blunnies.
There has been some interesting points made by many in this thread.

Distance covered in a walking day - I would not attempt 20km in a day. The longest distance covered by me in a day was from Louisa River to Cox Bight last week - a bit over 17km I believe. That's enough.
Carrying lighter loads, and walking on a good track would allow greater distances to be covered should you choose to. I choose not.
(EDIT - I did walk from Wineglass Bay campsite back along the Isthamus to Cooks beach and return in a day, about 20km I believe, just with aday pack. Scarpas again.)

Grip - walking up & down 45 degree angle rock faces in scarpas has never been a problem - a bit scarey at first but once you learn how grippy these soles are you will be amazed at how well they hang on. Of course you wouldn't risk such activity with a potentially fatal fall, but walking up a rock rather than skirting round the mud is sometimes a better option for me.

There is a weight issue. Let's clear it up.
Have you ever had a large dumptruck load of dirt delivered to your driveway? Take a shovel and one by one, load that shovel full of dirt into the wheelbarrow. wheel the barrow to its destination, return for another load.
If you want to pick up the dirt all at once, you cannot. But throughout a day, shovelling 10 tonnes of dirt is less work than you think.
Reason? bit by bit. Take the weight difference between boots and runners and add up the extra weight by the number of steps taken, and you are trying to argue moving the dirt all in one go.
Move the dirt bit by bit (move the boot step by step) and you are not going to notice.
Get yourself fit and ready for a walk, and if you have good comfortable boots, the weight difference at the end of the day should not be noticeable. How do I know, you might fairly ask - I have not walked in shoes.
I have never suffered for wearing boots on extended walks. Yes in shoes you are carrying less weight on your foot. But at what price for the stability of the ankle support I am offered with my boots.
Legs have strong muscles. Look at what they do. The weight of a pack, for example. The leg muscles have to carry all that, as well as a number of other muscles working to keep it all balanced and moving with you.
I am starting to make this sound like an argument but it is not meant to be - what I am doing is trying to discuss it as I see it and how it relates to me.

Snake - it is said on the Parks site that Tasmania snakes cannot bite through boots. It doesn't mention runners.

A comment made - boots are NOT better than shoes at stopping sprained ankles - in what context I wonder... Certainly boots are better than shoes at helping prevent sprained ankles when bushwalking, in my opinion.
So in this point I strongly disagree. As you said,

I also have thought that my boots have saved my ankles on occasions.

It was said,

Footwear is a personal preference and I am not telling anyone that they have to wear shoes, I am just pointing out that there is some evidence that boots do not protect ankles from sprains which goes against the common belief that I read all of the time that wearing boots do protect ankles from sprains.

and

My point is that there is no clear evidence that wearing boots stops ankle sprains as is commonly thought.

I do not know that boots "protect" ankles from sprains and I don't believe that this point should be the crux of the discussion, but I do believe and have experienced that they offer better ankle support and as such, minimize the risk of sprain - certainly for me at least. Offer better protection - Yes. Protect from - No.

In summary,

I would agree that on some muddy walks in Tasi, I probably use boots but for now where I am doing most of my walking I do not encounter much mud and I am going to still expore using my old runners. I might for winter try water proof lined shoes.

Good on you. That is what it is about - your whole discussion - about finding something that works for you and sharing that information so that others may benefit. Fits right into what the forum is about.
Just that it is not for everyone, as I have explained with my experiences and opinions, as have others, for and against.

One last thing,

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

Well, Im glad thats cleared up.

INDEED!

[MountainMule]

Hi guys (well, it seems mostly a male thing here , more's the pity), I am about to take the plunge and go to runners, after five decades of boots. Well, not quite, as I am going to have a bob each way.

My views are predicated on:
1/ I have reached the age where I want to keep walking, but not with 50lbs on my back.
2/ So I am going to use technology (light gear, well made runners) to achieve [1].
3/ I shall choose my footwear to suit the task. Call me old fashioned but I want full leather boots in SW Tassie and SW NZ, mountain scrambling and bogs everywhere else, for all the good reasons discussed above.
4/ That said, I have gone to the trouble of importing a pair of Roclite 315s (i.e., 31 grams) for trial. The brand has a serious reputation among distance runners and walkers in England and the States. These will be used in conjunction with light gear on appropriate trails (i.e., formed tracks without bogs, snow, etc.)
5/ IMHO the combination has to be right: lightweight footwear for lightweight gear, heavy footwear for a heavy load.

Cheers, MountainMule

[Darren]

G'Day
Without getting into the boots, joggers debate. (i use both) for you Tassie people who use boots in extended wet conditions, how do you go with them filling up with water and not being able to drain. One benefit I've found using trail joggers ( not the ridiculous gortex type) is the way the water drains once you get some dry ground and you socks dry out a little where my Asolos will hold water as long as I like.
I'm not chasing debate rather some experiences
Thanks
Darren