Going lighter on your feet

[wiiawiwb]

I spent some time last night reading a number of posts, from various hiking websites, related to the merits and issues of lightening the load on your feet.
It seems there is a trend to go as ultralight as possible.

I was at EMS yesterday and they happened to have a Salomon Revo boot which I tried on. It fit me better then any other piece of footwear I have ever worn. I used to have one of the predecessors of this model and enjoyed it for years.

The issue for me is whether to go lighter. As we all know, in the Adirondacks many trails have rocks to step on and over. In the past, I have used low-cut, lightweight trail runners which left my legs feeling great at day's end but the bottoms of my feet somewhat sore.

When I used the full-boot Salomons my feet were eternally thankful but the additional weight was noticable. Last year, I used a North Face low-cut shoe which has been beaten around and it' time to replace them.

The Salomon trail runners look enticing, but the Revos were soooo comfortable.

What are you folks doing as you replace a boot or shoe for three-season hiking/backpacking. Are you going lighter?

[Klip59]

Personally, I would go with the comfort. My feet are the most important part of my body to keep comfortable. If they feel good, then so does the hiking. Dry comfortable feet, there's no compromise!

[lumberzac]

Something to keep in mind is lighter shoes/boots means lighter pack, because the light weight footwear isn't designed to handle heavier backpacking loads.

As for myself, I've kind of went in reverse. I started out using mostly mid weight boots and now am using a full grain leather backpacking boot. I did this mainly because I found the lighter boots would not keep my feet dry as they tend to use materials that tend to soak water more readily. This isn't always the case and each shoe is different.

I also have a tendency to drag a foot. I'd end up banging the top of my foot pretty bad on rocks and tree roots. I wanted something the would protect my toes a little better.

[WinterWarlock]

I tend to agree with Lumberzac...I just picked up a pair of Raichle mid-weights...a bit heavier, but stiff sole, and good ankle support. I'd rather have this extra support than worry about the weight of the shoe.

[Seeker]

my gear mostly keeps getting lighter, including shoes. i've regressed back to heavier items in a couple cases (knife, headlamp vs smaller light).

but i don't consider it a 'new' trend... i read jardine's book, ''beyond backpacking'', a few years back. then i re-read kephart's ''camping and woodcraft'' and discovered that light was 'in' back then (1900?). and when i found a copy of george washington sears' ("Nessmuk") "woodcraft and camping", i found the phrase "go light, but right". and that was in the 1880s. in both cases, the emphasis was on practicality, light, tough gear, and comfort. the authors talked about how great the ''new'' aluminum'' pots were, how wool was practical, and how high leather boots were worthless. pretty good stuff.

[redhawk]

I tend to wear a mid weight boot for three seasons. I do try to stay on the lighter side, but not what would be considered "ultra" light. My shoes need to be tough, durable, waterproof, breathable and support my ankles.

Winter I wear a heavier, insulated, waterproof, breathable boot with an aggressive sole.

Hawk

[sky]

If you're thinking about "going light", try a really good pair of trail shoes.

I've got a pair, and I love 'em. They're designed to drain and dry- and they do. I've gotten my feet wet in them in 40 degree weather - but combined with a pair of woolies my feet were nice and warm.

something to consider, but not for those who don't like going out without ankle support.

[coolrobc]

I can't imagine hiking with any weight on my back without ankle support.

In the end I suppose it would depend on where you were going and for how long. A quick hike up a well maintained trail, trail shoes are probably fine. A quick hike over uneven terrain, I'd definitely want the ankle support.

In the end I'd rather carry and extra pond or two on my feet than roll an ankle.

[randomscooter]

I switch to trail runners as early in the spring as possible, and stay with them until the last moment in the fall time. Including trails, bushwhacks, the whole works. My favorites are Montrail Hardrocks. Very good support underfoot. I've hiked over 36 hours straight in them without sore feet. For short hikes (8 hours or less) in wet weather I just let them get wet. As Sky said above, they feel just fine when combined with wool socks. For longer hikes in wet weather I wear a pair of goretex socks in them. Trick is to put the insole INSIDE the sock, otherwise the folds in the sock will be annoying. In early season and late season when the water is cold I slip a pair of Tingley rubber boots over them. IMO treat the feet right and you're 90% of the way there.

As for uneven terrain, the ankle is flexible for a reason ... to allow the foot to adapt to uneven terrain. Lock it inside a stiff boot and you've compromised the design. Yes, some people have weak ankles, and since I'm not one of them I can only imagine that it must be a real nuisance dealing with it. But I do wonder if at least in some cases the supportive boots actually contribute to the problem by preventing the balancing and fine motor muscles from getting a good workout. Any experts want to contribute?

[oldsmores]

Having broken both an ankle and a foot by "rolling" my ankle (basketball, not hiking), I feel better with the support of a good boot. Today's boots are so much lighter than they used to be anyway, and I go hiking to get my exercise!

[Holdstrong]

I would wear sandals if I could find a sturdy enough pair whose straps wouldn't tear up my feet.

Until I find such a beast I go with the lightest pair of trail runners (sneakers) I can find. I do make a point of stretching the ankles thoroughly before setting off on a hike, and I seem to roll them on the trail about as much as I did in boots. For me, it seems like the range of injury ankle rolls that a boot would save and a trail runner would not is pretty small... so given the other benefits of light footwear it is a trade off I'm willing to live with. (I even wear trail runners with crampons in early and late ice seasons before snowshoes kick in)

[wiiawiwb]

When I had my Salomon boots (similar to the Revo) my ankles were locked in place much like it would be with a rollerblade boot. For the most part it was very comfortable and it would have taken a really nasty spill to turn an ankle. Not sure I could have because that particular model had lockdowns (akin to a rollerblade boot) that would not allow you to turn your ankle.

However, when I would descend down the rock face of a mountain I found the inability to manipulate my ankles to be dangerous. I could not move my leg and ankle in the needed angles to grip the rock face. Once I switched to low-cut hiking shoes/trail runners I was in significantly better control of my locomotion when descending.

Just wish I could find a lightweight, low-cut shoe whose sole could take all the punishment that the High Peaks trails offer without transferring it to the bottom of my feet.

My North Face model is not the answer for me so I'll looking. Some years ago, there was a model from Five-Ten that I loved but I am not enamoured with the current selection chocies.

[cavewine]

"heavy boots are antiquated"

For me, I have found that lighter footwear is key. I used to wear Sundowners year-round for hiking and backpacking. Nowadays I use them only during the in-between seasons of early-Spring and late-Fall. I've switched to trail runners (New Balance) and amphibious shoes (Salomon Techamphibians) with no complaints.

Used the Techamphibs for many activities, and last year when hiking to basecamp on Mt. Adams, in Oregon (8000' el.) and Mt Owens in the Tetons (9000'+ el.) and then having mt. boots for summiting. Obvously, this involved full packs with rope and other glacier and camping gear.

The NB trail runners I have put through the test several times in the High Peaks, rain or shine, sometimes with full 3-day pack, doing several peaks.

When the trails are dry, both work fine. When the trails are wet or muddy, again they both perform admirably. I've found that with real 'boots', especially the full leather, my feet get wet anyway from sweat and exertion, or from crossing deep mud holes and streams.

I got tired of trying to keep my boot-top from getting below water level and that sort of thing. With the light shoes and synthetic socks, I don't care if my shoes get wet or not, I can just keep on going no problem.

I haven't found any drawbacks. I think it probably strengthens your ankles to utilize a lighter shoe, and certainly adds to your enjoyment on cutting down a pound or two on each foot.

Use poles if you're worried about slips and falls, but I don't use mine much either - your leg and foot muscles and connective tissues will get stronger and more injury-resistant if you don't use them.

[rdl]

I have several different boots depending on what my plans are and what the terrain is.

If I'm hiking 20+ miles with a day pack, I'll wear my low cut Garmont boots.

Extended trips with a bigger pack, I'll wear my beefier Vasque boots.

Trail runs or short outing with a fanny pack and I'll wear my Montrail trail runners.

[Neil]

Trail runners. As much as possible and even for 12-14 hour hikes. Off-trail hikes are the easiest on the feet due to the infinite variety of foot placements and varying surface topography directly underfoot. The various stresses migrate from tissue structure to tissue structure whereas in walking on a sidewalk (the other end of the spectrum) it doesn't take long to get sore due to the uniform and non-yielding surface.

In stepping over lots of blowdown boots tend to get heavy.

As for preventing rolling the ankle and spraining a ligament I would train on a wobble board or simply practice standing on one tip-toe for 5-10 minutes a day. A part of "weak" ankles is a slow to react nervous system so the above exercises would kill 2 birds with one stone.