Hiking boots vs shoes

Bushwalking gear and paraphernalia. Electronic gadget topics (inc. GPS, PLB, chargers) belong in the 'Techno Babble' sub-forum.
Forum rules
TIP: The online Bushwalk Inventory System can help bushwalkers with a variety of bushwalk planning tasks, including: Manage which items they take bushwalking so that they do not forget anything they might need, plan meals for their walks, and automatically compile food/fuel shopping lists (lists of consumables) required to make and cook the meals for each walk. It is particularly useful for planning for groups who share food or other items, but is also useful for individual walkers.

Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby emma_melbourne » Wed 05 Jul, 2017 7:43 pm

I am looking to buy some hiking boots or hiking shoes, and would love some advice from people who actually do a bunch of hiking.

DISCLAIMER: You're going to all cringe, but... I have thus far been hiking in very expensive and comfortable running shoes - ASICS Gel Keyanos. I know, I know they're not for hiking. However they're super-comfortable, no blisters, no injuries ever. I'm mostly on well formed and smooth trails, not bush wacking. And they've been great.

Besides, I can tell you I've done far worst than that even, with friends driving spontaneously driving to Hanging Rock without forwarning or opportunity to change footwear. And I was in HIGH HEEL STILETTO BOOTS climbing Hanging Rock. And it rained, so wet rocks. lol

In any case, now I have a baby. She's 15 months old. She's walking, but obviously tires and goes in the carrier at some point. So I'm carrying around 10 kg of baby, in a WE Wildchild baby carrier pack that weighs 3 kg. Add to that the gear in the 30 L bottom compartment of the WE Wildchild.

So I'm going to buy some specialist hiking footwear. However I currently feel a bit confused by the contrary advice I've been given.

Next you're going to want to know what I'm doing with the footwear. Mostly well-formed trails. I'm not bushwacking. Shortish day hikes, but also the odd multi-day hike. I'm not doing mountaineering or much rock scrambling etc with a baby on my back. I do also want versatility. To do Tasmania trails, to go hiking in NZ (which is where I'm originally from), and Europe - mainly UK, France and Italy.

PRO-BOOTS ADVICE I'VE BEEN TOLD
Some people are like "oh you absolutely need a hiking boot - you need the ankle support, yadda-da, yadda-da..."
"You're in Australia - there are snakes."
"You're carrying a heavy load. I was in the army. You need boots so you don't roll your ankle."

PRO-SHOES ADVICE I'VE BEEN TOLD
Others are like "hiking boots are yesterday's news, they're clunky. People do huge hikes like the Apallachian Trail in hiking shoes or trail runners these days. Goretex boots inevitably get wet anyway, water will get in, and then they're hard to dry out. You're better to be in shoes, as they dry out quicker."
"Sherpas wear slippers on Everest, and are carrying huge loads. This whole thing about needing hiking boots is marketing spin."

So I feel confused. With the mixed advice I've got, I think I have erred on the side of cautiousness, thinking with the heavy load, maybe a mid-boot is best. Although I'm not used to hiking boots at all, of course. I'm used to high heel stilettos, high heel boots, and my ASICS Gel Keyano runners.

Today I went to Mountain Designs, focusing on the mid boots.

I tried on a few styles (such as Merrel Moab, Keen Targhee II, Salomon Ellipse 2, Zamberland Trail Lite Evo GTX).

Of these, I felt most comfortable in the Zamberlan Trail Lite Evo GTX. It also seems relatively light at 460 grams per shoe. It has positive reviews on various forums, but it's not a hugely popular boot so there's not a large volume of reviews. Specs here: http://www.mountaindesigns.com/store/pr ... -evo-gtx-w

The only negative from my perspective is it's a bit of a splurge, cost-wise, over the $300 budget I planned to spend. And I think that light brown finish will mark relatively easily - from an aesthetic point-of-view. But they're Italian-made and seem to have a good reputation. And my hope / expectation is it'd last me around 5 years.

Does this seem to all you experienced hikers to be an ok option for what I am doing? Am I being sensible to get these?

Should I be looking at hiking shoes as well?

Any advice appreciated.
User avatar
emma_melbourne
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun 18 Jun, 2017 2:49 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Region: Victoria
Gender: Female

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby findbuddha » Wed 05 Jul, 2017 8:22 pm

If you like using your runners and haven't noticed any ankle problems then hiking shoes might be an option for you. But if the terrain gets more rugged you have to rely more on your physical ability, whereas with mid or high boots the boot takes care of some of that for you. The trade-off is that they are heavier and less flexible.

I have dodgy ankles, and have recently purchased some higher-cut boots. I'll use them for the bulk of my hiking/backpacking but I'll use my trail-runners or light/flexible mid-cut boots for anything with challenging scrambling.

I think the boots you picked should be fine for your needs.
findbuddha
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon 26 Nov, 2012 5:33 pm
Region: Queensland

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby andrewa » Wed 05 Jul, 2017 9:11 pm

There seems to be a significant debate about whether shoes or boots provide better ankle support.

Personally I use both, but more so my hiking shoes these days. I'd probably prefer boots if the area I was going to involved wedging my feet between rocks, as they provide ankle protection - if not, then shoes suit me fine.

Having said that, the last time I was in NZ fly fishing a backcountry river for 10 days, I used wading shoes, rather than boots, and it was a very rough river on the Sth Island west coast - spent lots of time fishing with feet wedged between rocks, so, on reflection, I prefer shoes. Depends on the person - I'm all for saving weight.

A
andrewa
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sat 05 Mar, 2011 5:55 pm
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: None
Region: Victoria
Gender: Male

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby CasualNerd » Wed 05 Jul, 2017 10:31 pm

I've used boots, shoes, and mid height hybrids. If you're already using shoes you should be fine - I notice that people who swear by boots don't seem to have the dexterity or strength in the ankle to manage in shoes, because they rely on the ankle support of the boots.

A friend has the ellipse and loves them.
User avatar
CasualNerd
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Wed 03 Aug, 2011 3:33 pm
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby crollsurf » Wed 05 Jul, 2017 10:40 pm

The Zamberlan Trail Lite Evo GTX looks like a good boot. The higher cuff wont stop you rolling your ankle but will give you that slight delay time that gives you time to react. The best part about the higher cuff is when it's wet, along with the GorTex, you'll be able to walk puddles all day and still have dry feet. The only problem I see with that boot is that they could run hot in summer and the toes will scuff up badly. If outer is leather, you can polish out the scuff marks, if suede they'll look shabby very quickly.

All in all a good choice but you may want to get a quality light-weight shoe to start and get a hard core boot like the Zamberlan later. What ever you get, make sure they are super comfy.
User avatar
crollsurf
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Tue 07 Mar, 2017 10:07 am
Location: Sydney
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby madmacca » Thu 06 Jul, 2017 1:13 am

The real advantage of over-the-ankle boots is not the support, but the external protection from sticks, rocks, etc. The military expect people to RUN through the bush, be exposed to punji stakes, etc - the risk of external damage to the ankle is high - this is why they use high boots. If your hiking is on talus, involves extensive bushbashing, or heavy boot-sucking mud (eg. Tasmania), then over-the-ankle boots are probably a better choice.

In other conditions, the lighter weight and better drainage of trail runners/hiking shoes may be a better choice. They are also often cheaper than quality hiking boots.

One of the other advantages of lighter shoes is that they give you a better sense of where your foot is in relation to the ground (the fancy word for this is "proprioception". This can actually reduce your risk of rollover on roots, tilted rock slabs, etc.

There are many people who feel comfortable in boots, and I'm not going to say they are wrong. But if you have been comfortable in running shoes to date, then probably stick with that - just switch across to the chunkier tread of trail runners or hiking shoes.

Regardless of boots v shoes, the best defence against ankle rollovers are strong ankles. Barefoot calf raises are the ideal way to strengthen the ankle and foot muscles, especially if you can work up to the single leg variety.
madmacca
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri 14 Oct, 2011 11:18 pm
Region: Victoria
Gender: Male

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby wayno » Thu 06 Jul, 2017 4:29 am

slidng scale, the heavier your load, the rougher the track and the weaker your ankles the more you want to consider boots... you can test yourself out in shoes in those conditions to decide , I have both and choose according to the conditions, i usually go with nid height boots which are only slightly heavier than shoes and offer a bit more support. but arent as stable as full height boots. prone to anlke sprains? boots!
from the land of the long white clouds...
User avatar
wayno
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 8782
Joined: Sun 19 Jun, 2011 7:26 am
Location: NZ
Region: New Zealand
Gender: Male

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby slparker » Thu 06 Jul, 2017 10:56 am

*sigh*

You have just asked the question most likely to get differing opinions. What I can say from the perspective of reading the podiatric and orthopaedic literature (which doesn't replace experience and anecdote but is more objective), caveat - I am not a physician, podiatrist or physiotherapist:

1. The heavier the footwear the greater the physiological cost. 100g on the foot is the same physiological cost as 600g on the back. For example, If you need to wear heavy boots (i.e. mountaineering) you will be less fatigued by carrying the boots in your pack and wearing approach shoes until you need them.

2. Boots are not necessary to prevent sprains. Proprioception (your brain knowing where your foot is in space)prevents sprains. The best footwear for proprioception has a tendency to having a low and unpadded sole unit.

3. If you have weak ligaments from previous sprains, the best way to prevent further sprains is strengthening the soft tissues or, if your ligaments are too lax for this to be effective, sportstaping from sole to ankle (which increases proprioception) or wearing a brace that limits inversion of the foot (the rigidish lace up type). There is no evidence that boots can prevent sprains in people with lax ligaments but there is plenty of evidence that taping and bracing does. It is possible for a boot to prevent sprains if it limits foot inversion (the most common injury) via a rigid upper - but given the necessity of boots to have a flexible upper to allow ankle flexion and extension in all planes this seems doubtful.

4. There is nothing wrong with wearing boots but they aren't necessary for bushwalking.

(Points 1-3 are from memory and may be slightly inaccurate but I can find the references from previous posts.)

Now, people report that boots are better than shoes for the following reasons:
#Boots protect the ankles from sprain.
# Boots can protect the ankle from rock pinching/abrasion etc in off track or unstable terrain.
#Boots are probably more protective from penetrative injury of the lower limb in hostile terrain (i.e. off track in remote areas)
#Boots are probably better in snow (although goretex shoes and gaiters are reportedly good as well).
#Boots can also have a deeper lugged sole which is better in mud (although some shoes have this as well).
#Some boots can temporarily prevent water ingress through the sides via goretex or thick proofed leather (but cannot prevent your feet from getting damp from sweat).

Why I sometimes choose to wear boots (anecdote alert):
Daywalks or overnight walks in cold, wet weather when i can probably keep my feet dry - goretex boots are higher and dryer if they are not getting flooded from creek crossings.
Very rocky walks (i.e.talus or boulder fields) just for the ankle protection from rock pinching and abrasion.
Grip. Grip is king and manufacturers seem to reserve their best soles for boots although my latest trail runners seem pretty good.
Because I still have two pair that haven't worn out yet.
Last edited by slparker on Thu 06 Jul, 2017 11:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
slparker
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri 25 Apr, 2008 10:59 pm

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby wayno » Thu 06 Jul, 2017 11:06 am

depends on the weather, with enough rain, goretex doesnt stay dry, turns into swimming pools and are much harder to dry out. people from the wettest climates often want to avoid gore tex the most, their main advantage is in very cold dry climates, they keepyour feet warmer
from the land of the long white clouds...
User avatar
wayno
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 8782
Joined: Sun 19 Jun, 2011 7:26 am
Location: NZ
Region: New Zealand
Gender: Male

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby slparker » Thu 06 Jul, 2017 11:12 am

wayno wrote:depends on the weather, with enough rain, goretex doesnt stay dry, turns into swimming pools and are much harder to dry out. people from the wettest climates often want to avoid gore tex the most, their main advantage is in very cold dry climates, they keepyour feet warmer


I completely agree. Which is why i stated that it is only useful for cold weather (i.e. limiting foot sweating) and short walks where the footwear probably isn't going to get flooded.

if all you're doing is daywalks and overnighters without lengthy creek crossings they'd be fine. Does limit their application somewhat.
slparker
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri 25 Apr, 2008 10:59 pm

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby wayno » Thu 06 Jul, 2017 11:24 am

the newer you are to hiking the more you should lean toward boots to start with, make sure you get your feet and ankles strong enough , you can end up with very sore feet if they arent strong enough to cope with cross country walks with apack on and you dont strengthen them up over nght, theres no use spraining your ankle because you started in shoes when you werent ready
from the land of the long white clouds...
User avatar
wayno
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 8782
Joined: Sun 19 Jun, 2011 7:26 am
Location: NZ
Region: New Zealand
Gender: Male

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby Son of a Beach » Thu 06 Jul, 2017 11:55 am

The fact that opinions on this issue are so strong on both camps, AND in between, indicates that there is no one clear winner. Therefore the logical and easy answer is to use whatever suits you, taking into consideration the types of walking and types of tracks you plan to do.

I go barefoot on really easy tracks (up to two or three days) including short easy off-track areas where I know the territory well. Then I use walking shoes (or sneakers) on moderate tracks. Off track, or on rough tracks, I'll use boots.

My reasons for boots on off-track, or rough tracks are:
  • ankle protection (ie, for scrapes, sticks)
  • ankle support (they do provide some support, but whether or not its enough to prevent injury is debatable)
  • keep my feet dry (with boots and gaiters, I can cross mid-shin-depth water a 2 or 3 metres wide without getting wet feet - but if they do get wet, the boots take days to dry out; some shoes will dry much faster)
  • squish protection (sometimes it becomes necessary to have a foot wedged between rocks - the stiff sole protects the boot and foot from being squished)
  • deep mud (this is a matter of personal preference, but I reckon I get less muck in my boots when wading through deep mud that I would when wearing shoes)
  • long lasting (I get about 10 years out of a pair of boots, including some rather rough off-track walking, most shoes wear out and fall apart after two or three years of similar treatment)
Son of a Beach
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 7014
Joined: Thu 01 Mar, 2007 7:55 am
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: Bit Map (NIXANZ)
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby emma_melbourne » Thu 06 Jul, 2017 4:08 pm

Thank you so much everyone for the generosity of sharing your knowledge and views.

Just to clarify, I do a lot of walking, and I believe my ankles are strong. I've not ever strained, sprained or broken anything, ever. I'm quite coordinated and have quite a good sense of my foot placement, and on the odd occasion I have gone to nearly trip over something unexpectedly, I've managed to recover well and have never sprained anything.

So the only new thing though is the baby weight I'm carrying.

I've walked around with her on a front carrier (Hugabub when she was little, which is a fabric strip carrier. And then Ergobaby 360 when she was bigger and heavier.)

However I've now got this brilliant infant pack carrier by Wilderness Experience called the 'Wildchild' which is like a backpack made to carry a baby, and it has 30 L bottom compartment, and attachable 8 L side compartments.

However baby weighs 10 kg, and infant carrier weighs 3 kg. So that's already 13 kg.

Add to that equipment, medical kit, survival kit, clothing, emergency shelter, etc. And as you can imagine, I'm carrying a heavy load for a 5"7 woman.

So the main consideration I'm adding into the equation is all the weight I'm carrying on my back. And how that might affect the choice of footwear.

If it were just me and a small daypack, (without my baby toddler daughter), I'd go trail shoes.

However with the 13 kg of baby + carrier, and then more kilos for the gear, that's where the advice maybe might be different.

It's interesting how split the issue is of boots versus shoes.

I would have thought they'd the science / rigorous data analysis - would have come down more on one side by now.

I take on board all the points made though - regards individual needs and some people with dodgy ankles / previous injuries or sprains / older age etc. It depending also on what you're wanting to do with them with regards terrain, wet conditions, mud, etc.

And I agree regards the points made on "proprioception". Didn't know that word - love it!

One of the major reasons I don't want clunky heavy boots with really stiff soles and no flex is that I like to feel the ground and texture under me and this helps me avoid tripping up. I like being sensitive and aware, and placing my feet well. A bit of nimbleness on foot can be enormous help for avoiding injury.

I think after reading all you've said, I might get both - the lightweight boots that fit me well and feel good on, AND some trail shoes.

I can then also test out both on some hikes, before I make a decision as to what I'm taking on a multi-day hike.

Ugh - the splurge. I'm going to have to reign back my spending in some other area.

Best,

Emma
User avatar
emma_melbourne
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun 18 Jun, 2017 2:49 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Region: Victoria
Gender: Female

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby wayno » Thu 06 Jul, 2017 4:17 pm

boots dont always mean stiff soles at all, some are essentially heavier duty running shoes and can have a variety of flex in them, i find more importantly to find soles that dont twist, but can still flex and thats what all my boots do.
from the land of the long white clouds...
User avatar
wayno
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 8782
Joined: Sun 19 Jun, 2011 7:26 am
Location: NZ
Region: New Zealand
Gender: Male

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby north-north-west » Thu 06 Jul, 2017 4:56 pm

It's very much a personal thing. Some people don't like boots. They're heavier and that makes walking that teensy bit harder. But they do last longer, especially on rougher routes.
There are pros and cons either way.

And it really isn't possible to prove, one way or the other, which is the better option. To get a truly objective judgment you'd have to have tens of thousands of people repeating the exact same walk, in identical conditions, with an identical load, in an identical frame of mind. Can't be done.

Personally, I go boots most of the time, but that's me. My ankles are strong but my balance sucks and I feel more secure in boots. Plus, the only two times I've injured my feet/ankles walking, it's been over-extension from skidding on a loose steep surface while wearing shoes. The weight is worth it. And with a decent pair of gaiters it takes a long time for water or mud to get in.

If shoes work for you, no reason you can't stick with them. If they last long enough. Although that means that in some areas you are going to have permanently wet feet.
"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens."
User avatar
north-north-west
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 15069
Joined: Thu 14 May, 2009 7:36 pm
Location: The Asylum
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: Social Misfits Anonymous
Region: Tasmania

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby peregrinator » Thu 06 Jul, 2017 9:34 pm

north-north-west wrote: . . . There are pros and cons either way. And it really isn't possible to prove, one way or the other, which is the better option. To get a truly objective judgment you'd have to have tens of thousands of people repeating the exact same walk, in identical conditions, with an identical load, in an identical frame of mind. Can't be done . . .


Says it all, really.

But perhaps there could be one way of examining this vexing issue, removing some but not all of the subjectivity. (I'm not volunteering.) One intrepid walker could do a number of walks, say one hundred, under various conditions. On one foot a boot, on the other a shoe. Then do another hundred, this time reversing the foot on which boot and shoe are worn. The published data would have to include voluminous footnotes. (I'm not reading them.)
peregrinator
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Fri 15 Apr, 2011 2:50 pm
Region: Victoria

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby Son of a Beach » Fri 07 Jul, 2017 9:05 am

peregrinator wrote:
north-north-west wrote: . . . There are pros and cons either way. And it really isn't possible to prove, one way or the other, which is the better option. To get a truly objective judgment you'd have to have tens of thousands of people repeating the exact same walk, in identical conditions, with an identical load, in an identical frame of mind. Can't be done . . .


Says it all, really.

But perhaps there could be one way of examining this vexing issue, removing some but not all of the subjectivity. (I'm not volunteering.) One intrepid walker could do a number of walks, say one hundred, under various conditions. On one foot a boot, on the other a shoe. Then do another hundred, this time reversing the foot on which boot and shoe are worn. The published data would have to include voluminous footnotes. (I'm not reading them.)


Some studies have been done, and links posted to other topics on this forum. But they are are all focused on basketball teams, army infantry, or other types of use (and types of footwear) which are very different to bushwalking.

If you want to do that definitive study, I'll be happy to be a guinea pig for it. So long as it pays for me to do 100 bushwalks (x2), I reckon that's a good deal! ;-)
Son of a Beach
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 7014
Joined: Thu 01 Mar, 2007 7:55 am
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: Bit Map (NIXANZ)
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby Davidf61 » Sun 09 Jul, 2017 11:10 pm

Shoes definitely. At least for me.

I saw some fascinating article on the web [trying to find it] about the physics/math involved between walking in boots and shoes. Basically described how picking up, moving forward and then placing down a heavier boot compared to a shoe was. Over the course of a reasonable days hike it was measured that you had moved several TONNES more weight with your legs using boots. So say each shoe weighs 500 grams vs say 1000 grams for a boot [ rough I know, but you get the idea ], that extra effort involved will add up quickly.

I work in an iron ore mine, heavy boots off after 14hrs, you definitely float on air for a little while.......

I also prefer the mobility/speed of shoes, if you do slip it's easier to move a lighter shoe to regain footing.
I also believe if you have a well supported [ie rigid] ankle and you lose footing, your ankle may be fine but the force/stress of the slip [ gravity, momentum,body weight and pack ] just moves up the leg, calf/knee/hips.

My 2 cents anyway.
Davidf61
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed 10 Apr, 2013 5:46 pm
Region: Western Australia
Gender: Male

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby muffin man » Mon 10 Jul, 2017 10:51 am

I hiked in heavy Scarpa boots for twenty + years until they wore out.
In the meantime I started walking in runners, so much better for my style of walking.
Tried on a new pair of boots last year but they felt horrible.
Just last week I did 4 x about 10k walks in the Flinders.
Of course these are trashed within about a year so need regular replacing.
muffin man
Nothofagus gunnii
Nothofagus gunnii
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri 28 Aug, 2015 1:36 pm
Region: South Australia

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby gbagua » Sat 15 Jul, 2017 12:24 pm

Get this:

https://www.sportiva.com/ultra-raptor-womens.html


And you'll never use hiking boots/running shoes again unless you plan to climb Lhotse or Chacraraju. ;)
User avatar
gbagua
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat 20 Oct, 2012 9:04 pm
Region: Queensland

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby GPSGuided » Sat 15 Jul, 2017 5:56 pm

How useful are ankle taping for ankle protection? I sometimes would accidentally invert my ankle when tired but fortunately never a proper sprain or (touch wood) fracture. Have happened in both boots and shoes styled outdoors footwears. I'm curious if these taping would realistically assist and prevent a potential hazard for me.
Just move it!
User avatar
GPSGuided
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon 13 May, 2013 2:37 pm
Location: Sydney
Region: New South Wales

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby Gadgetgeek » Sat 15 Jul, 2017 7:15 pm

Tape works for about 20 min. For a hike its pretty well pointless. Despite the hundreds of meters of tape the average athlete goes through, there is little evidence that it works outside of some very very specific circumstances (those shoulder tapes a lot of AFL players wear is one case, and you see how much they have layered on, you want to carry that many rolls?) You are better off letting the injury heal, and strengthening/gaining flexibility than relying on a splinting tape. Plus foot swelling can lead to problems if you were to leave tape on for a full day. I think tape is often used as a placebo, and while there are some cases where it works, you can do massive damage if you do it wrong, so I just stay away from it.

Compression for a fresh injury is different, but many people conflate the two.
Gadgetgeek
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1214
Joined: Sun 23 Sep, 2012 4:10 pm
Region: Queensland
Gender: Male

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby nq111 » Sat 15 Jul, 2017 8:26 pm

GPSGuided wrote:How useful are ankle taping for ankle protection? I sometimes would accidentally invert my ankle when tired but fortunately never a proper sprain or (touch wood) fracture. Have happened in both boots and shoes styled outdoors footwears. I'm curious if these taping would realistically assist and prevent a potential hazard for me.


Not taping but specially built ankle braces. I use Swede-o tarsal lok's - but I am sure other brands exist as good. They add just enough support to prevent sprain without limiting other movement and being very light.

Long time boot fan with a problematic ankle (right one). Problems with finding boots I like for the tropics (ventilated, light, non-waterproof but with good ankle support) led me to the ankle braces. Now wear Inov-8s (which have that great low slung, almost flat sole) with the ankle braces on all walks (including week+, off-track, etc). The light weight, free draining and close-to-the-ground stability combined with the ankle support means I don't see myself going back to boots.

For the record I do believe that boots (leather ones with stiffish sides) do help to reduce sprains quite a bit. Whether it was support or enhanced proprioception from the boot sides I have no idea. Only time I recall rolling the ankle in them was coming off a short abseil with pack still on. Thick grass at the bottom meant i misjudged the rocks underneath and rolled enough to hurt, but not enough to stop me completing the walk (Eagles Ridge - Mt Barney).

Also, I got to add reading the comments so far - I really appreciate the quality of discussion and input on this forum. So much better than the drivel on many other sites!
User avatar
nq111
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon 07 Mar, 2011 8:27 pm
Region: Queensland

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby GPSGuided » Sun 16 Jul, 2017 9:11 am

Thanks for the comments on taping. Guess there are no magic tapes out there.
Just move it!
User avatar
GPSGuided
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon 13 May, 2013 2:37 pm
Location: Sydney
Region: New South Wales

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby Gadgetgeek » Sun 16 Jul, 2017 2:11 pm

No, and sadly there is a lot of marketing hype out there that could be causing harm, even among physios and others who should know better.
Gadgetgeek
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1214
Joined: Sun 23 Sep, 2012 4:10 pm
Region: Queensland
Gender: Male

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby rcaffin » Sun 16 Jul, 2017 6:18 pm

Boots vs joggers ...
A bit like comparing dinosaurs to pussy cats.
You will find that all the gear shops strongly recommend boots. But they don't sell joggers because the profit margin on them is too slim.
You will also find that a lot of bushwalking clubs don't bother mentioning boots these days.
For the record, the only boots I own are ski boots. But we (wife & I) do have lots of joggers.
Cheers
Roger
User avatar
rcaffin
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Thu 17 Jul, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby Orion » Mon 17 Jul, 2017 2:51 am

I can only offer anecdotes and descriptions of personal preference.

I walked part of the Larapinta and decided in advance to play it safe and take boots. I think I would have been okay in trail runners but, all things considered, I was happy I had my boots. For me the weight/comfort penalty of boots only comes into play on longer days and we never walked more than 20km in a day. If I had been doing 30-50km days I would have worn my runners and accepted the additional abrasion and occasion poking by spiky plants.

As for ankle support, I notice no advantage from my boots. I rolled my ankles (without injury) numerous times on the Larapinta, just like I do in my runners. Maybe with really stiff boots laced tightly there would be a difference in support.

Snow/ice/mud almost always means boots for me. Otherwise runners.
Orion
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1963
Joined: Mon 02 Feb, 2009 12:33 pm
Region: Other Country

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby jimmeyer176 » Sat 22 Jul, 2017 1:28 pm

You don't 'need' boots for hiking, I got over 5000kms in Asics runners, La Sportiva runners, and Merrell train shoes. 3 countries, including freezing temperatures and snow. No issues.
jimmeyer176
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue 02 Nov, 2010 3:12 pm
Region: New South Wales

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby ofuros » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 12:07 pm

Only recently trialing runners in Sub Tropical Qld...off track walking, light day or
overnight loads.
So far I'm impressed, great cushioning, dry quick when wet from morning dew & creeks crossings,
great grip, lightweight...like bouncing on baby clouds. 8)
I wear shorty gaiters to combat any debris getting in....will have to see how well the mesh uppers hold up though.

Only drawback for me so far is traversing on steep terrain they tend to roll around on the foot.

DSCF3068 (Medium).JPG
Mountain views are good for my soul...& getting to them is good for my waistline !
https://ofuros.exposure.co/
User avatar
ofuros
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1919
Joined: Fri 05 Feb, 2010 4:42 pm
Region: Queensland
Gender: Male

Re: Hiking boots vs shoes

Postby gbagua » Tue 25 Jul, 2017 8:29 am

Just take a look what this crew is wearing:

https://smiffyspics.smugmug.com/Adventu ... ing-Ridge/


I also did that ridge with the Ultra Raptors on and it was the best 'utensil' I have ever worn in a hike of any kind. Except specific terrain ---> boots never again!
User avatar
gbagua
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat 20 Oct, 2012 9:04 pm
Region: Queensland

Next

Return to Equipment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests