Heavy backpacking boots vs. light hiking shoes?

[Macchina]

I recently went out to get fitted for nice insoles to bring some life back into my Vasque Sundowners. I went to a local running store and the guy there was very knowledgeable and recommended some Powerstep insoles with a lot of arch support. I have always had flat feet, so I bought shoes without arch support... little did I know that I just needed the CORRECT arch support (very broad support that doesn't push in any one spot). I love these boots for hiking, but recently they have started to make my feet hurt. Hopefully this will fix that problem.

On the way home I stopped at a backpacking outfitter and saw they had some Keen Newport Trail hiking shoes there for $85 so I picked them up. They feel great on my feet and have a surprisingly stiff polycarbonate shank. They are somewhere in between low and mid cut, while the Sundowners are a healthy mid cut. Now my dilemma: which pair to hike in. Both feel great on my feet when I wear them for a day at work, the Sundowners are tried and true, but heavy. I have been wanting to move to something lightweight for a while, but don't want to bust my ankles off or have throbbing feet because of something I have not thought of.

I have only hiked in heavy duty boots until now, with 50 lbs. loads on week long treks and many weekend hikes with 30 lbs. packs. I have a weekend trip coming up this month and a week long trek in the dessert later this year. So, do you backpack with light shoes and if so what is your load/milage/trip length like? What are the pros/cons to hiking in something that is not a boot?

 

[OwenM]

What are the pros/cons to hiking in something that is not a boot?

Cons:
Less support, less protection.
Pros:
Lighter, more comfortable.

I've always worn boots, either tall leather, or ~6" leather and/or synthetic "hiking" boots. Started using Merrell Moab Gore-Tex XCR trail shoes a couple of months ago.
http://www.rei.com/product/757560
Since I walk 6 miles almost daily, regardless of weather, mine have over 300 miles on them. They've been soaked, scraped, and covered in mud. When clean, they still look brand new.
30lbs. is the most I've ever packed while wearing them.
After about 50 miles worth of hiking over the course of a week's vacation, I doubt I'll ever go back to boots, now. Had my orthopedic insoles in place, and had only minor discomfort from a plantar faschia injury(hence the insoles). They're worth a look.

 

[sadiejane]

the keens can be great hikers. ive never had any sort of foot problem from them
and have been out for days at a time with 30+ lbs. spent a 5 week trip on the mediteranian coast hiking everyday. those were the only shoes i even took with(tho i did carry some moleskin in my pack just in case-never needed it)one thing i dont like about em, they are slick on wet rocks, moss etc. so take that into consideration. even tho they make many water and hiking specific shoes/boots-the sole material leaves something to be desired if yr planning on being somewhere theres lots of wetness. but they fit so well and last for yrs. if they could just figure out the sole material they would be, for me, the ideal show for just about every app.

 

[smersh]

I only use full-grain leather boots if in really rocky terrain, or with very heavy loads. Keens now meet virtually all of my hiking needs.

Moving to lighter gear pays compound interest -- compact, light gear allows you to carry a lighter pack, which allows you to go with lighter boots, etc.

 

[MustardMan]

I am a big fan of minimizing the support I get from my footwear - the more you hike without arch and ankle support, the stronger the muscles, tendons, and ligaments in your legs and feet become, and the less injury prone you are.

There's been much less research in terms of hiking, but there is tons of research with running. If you go back and look at the history of running injuries before the introduction of fancy running shoes and after, there has NEVER been a decline in the rate of injury, from all this elaborate shoe technology Nike and Reebok have introduced over the years. In fact, some studies actually show an increase. Rather than letting your legs get strong and using your natural instincts and reflexes to protect yourself, you end up relying on your shoe's support to keep you from being injured, and the studies have shown that the absolute best all that technology can accomplish is to keep the rate of injury the same, and in many cases it actually makes you MORE injury prone.

Now, I'm not claiming these studies carry over directly into hiking, but it does make sense. Let your legs get strong, and you will be less injury prone - and to accomplish that, you've gotta take away the artificial support.


For short overnighters and day hikes, I like to wear Vibram Fivefingers to give my feet full range of motion. If the weather or terrain (the fivefingers are very thin) dictate something with more protection for my soles, I will wear some Keens, either outright sandals or sandal-shoe hybrids. For longer hikes, I might put on some trail running shoes. And if I've got an atypically heavy pack weight, where I'm not confident in my leg strength to protect myself, I MIGHT wear something with ankle support.



The only time I wear full-blown boots is when there is a lot of snow on the ground.

 

[bkduckworth]

Like OwenM I've been hiking in a pair of Merrell Moab Gore-Tex XCRs. I don't have as many miles on mine as he does, but so far I've been really impressed. I've got the mids, so they do have a little more support. With the Merrells I'm replacing a pair of 5 year old LL Beane Cresta Hikers that I loved. While I know that I probably won't get 5 years out of the Merrells, I really don't think I'm giving up much preformance going with the lighter shoe.

Brandon

 

[hoopster]

I am a big fan of minimizing the support I get from my footwear - the more you hike without arch and ankle support, the stronger the muscles, tendons, and ligaments in your legs and feet become, and the less injury prone you are.

Agreed. Read Ray Jardine's book "Beyond Backpacking". He's a proponent for running shoes arguing that they're lighter, allow for the natural strengthening of muscles, etc. and also allow your feet to breath better. It's a lot more in depth than that and he covers everything from calluses, blisters, to water and durability etc. He does make a compelling case and has hiked thousands of miles to back it up.
I usually wear light mid top boots like the cheaper Hi-tec offerings.

 

[Macchina]

I am a big fan of minimizing the support I get from my footwear - the more you hike without arch and ankle support, the stronger the muscles, tendons, and ligaments in your legs and feet become, and the less injury prone you are.

There's been much less research in terms of hiking, but there is tons of research with running. If you go back and look at the history of running injuries before the introduction of fancy running shoes and after, there has NEVER been a decline in the rate of injury, from all this elaborate shoe technology Nike and Reebok have introduced over the years. In fact, some studies actually show an increase. Rather than letting your legs get strong and using your natural instincts and reflexes to protect yourself, you end up relying on your shoe's support to keep you from being injured, and the studies have shown that the absolute best all that technology can accomplish is to keep the rate of injury the same, and in many cases it actually makes you MORE injury prone.

Now, I'm not claiming these studies carry over directly into hiking, but it does make sense. Let your legs get strong, and you will be less injury prone - and to accomplish that, you've gotta take away the artificial support.


For short overnighters and day hikes, I like to wear Vibram Fivefingers to give my feet full range of motion. If the weather or terrain (the fivefingers are very thin) dictate something with more protection for my soles, I will wear some Keens, either outright sandals or sandal-shoe hybrids. For longer hikes, I might put on some trail running shoes. And if I've got an atypically heavy pack weight, where I'm not confident in my leg strength to protect myself, I MIGHT wear something with ankle support.



The only time I wear full-blown boots is when there is a lot of snow on the ground.

I have wondered how much of my foot pain is from manufacturers attempts to fix general foot "problems". Just curious, do you have correctly shaped feet, or do you have dropped arches, plantar fasciitis, etc? For as long as I can remember I have had foot pain when my shoes didn't fit right, I have very flat feet (basically no arch at all).

One problem with your theory is the difference between support and protection. I have really hurt my feet in tennis shoes before when I stubbed a toe, dropped something on a toe, or scuffed my foot against an unmovable object. A lifted nail can really wreck a backpacking trip fast! I can understand the theory on strengthening your feet and not relying on a shaped foot bed, but I cannot agree that hiking with minimal foot protection is a good idea, not when you have miles to haul yourself back to your vehicle no matter what shape your feet are in. As far as ankle support: exercises and minimalist daily footwear can help prevent rolled ankles, but when you add 50 lbs. to your weight and go up and down uneven/unstable ground you are again putting yourself at preventable risk by wearing shoes that do not provide some support if your ankle does begin to roll. Your ankle is a joint, which means it is meant to bend. Everything that is meant to bend can bend too far...

 

[hollowdweller]

Trail shoes here.

I had a pair of Merrell Stretch Chameleons I wore a LOT till I wore them out.

I switched to a Keene boot but while light it's too tight.

I have probably walked over 100 miles in my Keen Newport Sandals and I think they are some of the best to hike in of anything I'ver ever owned.

This year I ordered some Oboz firebrands to try because all the reviews I read said they had some of the thickest soles. Haven't got them yet.

I think only leather boots are truly waterproof for any length of time.

However they are blister machines for me because they don't allow moisture to dissapate.

With the light shoes I can wear them and afford to bring along my Keen sandals or other shoes like that and just wear those when I'm worried about getting wet.

I have pretty strong ankles so the lack of support while wearing a pack has never hurt me.

 

[Iboschi]

Simple answer:

The heavier the load = Sturdier boots
Lighter load = Lighter shoes

Use each as needed for light hikes or 50LB loads.

 

[bcornelis]

I use about 20 pounds (packweight) on moderate terrain as a rule of thumb of whether to wear lightweight boots or heavy hiking boots.

A big risk in wearing the lightweight boots in rugged terrain or with a heavier load is spraining an ankle, which has happened to me twice.

 

[Skimo]

I wear plain old shoes, good breathing, no ankle support.

Rough terrain just makes me slow down, watching where you walk is more important than what shoes or boots you are wearing.

Safety is another thing, poison ivy, thorns, snakes, ticks etc, are all good reasons for wearing boots, or at least leggings.

 

[hollowdweller]

Back in the 70's when I had Dendrology class the whole class wore those heavy mountaineering style hiking boots that were popular back then with the red laces.

Our professor on the other hand wore tennis shoes and wore our asses out going up and down the hill.

 

[mdauben]

I have only hiked in heavy duty boots until now, with 50 lbs. loads on week long treks

Honestly, I think the best thing you could do for your feet (legs, back, shoulders... ) is work on reducing that load. Dropping 10-15# from that total will do more than the best boots, and is doable with modern gear, without resorting to extreme "ultralight" tactics.

I am a big fan of minimizing the support I get from my footwear - the more you hike without arch and ankle support, the stronger the muscles, tendons, and ligaments in your legs and feet become, and the less injury prone you are.

In theory, I agree, in practice I would not recommend this approach.

Now, I'm not saying you should not strive to increase the strength of you muscles, tendons, and ligaments, but not during a backpacking trip. This is something you should do at home or the gym, where overstressing something is not a trip-killer or going to leave you with a sprained ankle 20 miles from the trail head.

Personally, these days I like to use light weight hikers, with some arch and ankle support, but not the sort of heavy-weight "Frankenstein" hiking boots I used to wear back in my early days of backpacking and hiking. I found they did damage than good, for me at least.

 

[Shotgun]

Trail shoes here.

I had a pair of Merrell Stretch Chameleons I wore a LOT till I wore them out.

I switched to a Keene boot but while light it's too tight.

I have probably walked over 100 miles in my Keen Newport Sandals and I think they are some of the best to hike in of anything I'ver ever owned.

This year I ordered some Oboz firebrands to try because all the reviews I read said they had some of the thickest soles. Haven't got them yet.

I think only leather boots are truly waterproof for any length of time.

However they are blister machines for me because they don't allow moisture to dissapate.

With the light shoes I can wear them and afford to bring along my Keen sandals or other shoes like that and just wear those when I'm worried about getting wet.

I have pretty strong ankles so the lack of support while wearing a pack has never hurt me.

I have a pair of those Keen sandalls and they are really comfy to walk in. My only gripe is that it lets rocks and small twigs in but with the closed tow, it's hard to get them out. If they closed the holes with some kind of netting like the equivalent Merrell's they would have an awesome shoe. I personally am going to go with a pair of Chacos for good weather trail walking.
I really like leather boots for bad weather and bushwacking though. They're heavy sure but they work. If it's a short hike, 10 miles or less, I don't think there's much of an effect as far as weight.

 

[hollowdweller]

I have a pair of those Keen sandalls and they are really comfy to walk in. My only gripe is that it lets rocks and small twigs in but with the closed tow, it's hard to get them out. .

Totally agree, they can be tough to get stuff out of when wading but for me the comfort walking is amazing.

 

[Macchina]

Honestly, I think the best thing you could do for your feet (legs, back, shoulders... ) is work on reducing that load. Dropping 10-15# from that total will do more than the best boots, and is doable with modern gear, without resorting to extreme "ultralight" tactics.

This was a unique canoeing trip I did in Algonquin Park (three times, one week each). On the portages, one person got the canoe, one person got the two man pack. The canoes we had weighed 75 lbs., so the pack was the better deal by far...

I have a pair of those Keen sandalls and they are really comfy to walk in. My only gripe is that it lets rocks and small twigs in but with the closed tow, it's hard to get them out. If they closed the holes with some kind of netting like the equivalent Merrell's they would have an awesome shoe.

That is what the Newport Trail shoes are (plus a waterproof liner)... They are built on the same last!

 

[chuck buck]

i prefer to just wear my regular canvas Vans (similar style to chuck taylors). i usually just go on day hikes so a modern day moccasin is the way to go for me with no heavy loads. the only down side is that there is not a lot of traction so keeping an eye on foot placement is key. i wore big boots a few times but they werent for me. i like to feel the ground (most the time!).

 

[evbouret]

Montrail Torre GTX's for me! Nice balance between a hiker and a heavy boot.

 

[BlackHills]

Simple answer:

The heavier the load = Sturdier boots
Lighter load = Lighter shoes

Use each as needed for light hikes or 50LB loads.

+1 :thumbup: There's no way I'd wear shoes while carrying a 50lb pack if I had a choice.