Once I converted to ultralight backpacking, I started wearing running shoes, with light nylon dress socks. I haven't had a blister yet. I know all the arguments on both sides, and not everyone can leave the boots behind, but I have a different question: Do any of you know of a single case where a backpacker tried shoes instead of boots, and switched back to hiking boots? Steve http://www.TheBackpackingSite.com
i know after going barefoot for awhile i got blisters after i started to wear my shoes again......right on the side of my heels ...that sucked
I'm sure there are cases, but it's really going to be a case by case thing. Some people can hack it, some can't. Probably has to do with the individuality of one's feet, their strength (shoe wearing weakens feet), and ankle strength. I went barefoot on my last backpacking trip, after having barefooted as much as possible since around April. No blisters for me, my feet and ankles were pretty strong, and it was great. But you have to work up to it. Probably the same for shoes vs boots. You have to sorta train for it. If a weak footed/ankled person switched to shoes, they might have some trouble, but their feet would also eventually adapt to the new stresses.
in the sommer time i prefer barefoot but in the fall i prefer my boots, i have tried shoes also, but i never realy like it..
Really depends on the weight I'm carrying and the conditions I'm walking through. If I've got a bunch of climbing gear, ropes, etc. I go with boots. Likewise, if I'm walking through snow or mud, it's' much easier to keep my feet dry w/ boots. Lastly, you can't really strap crampons onto sneakers...
Yeah, if you're going to be going down some rough decents, boots with a good sole will absorb alot of the impact of stepping down and keep your feet from hurting longer. A Lot of people like the ankle support too. Personally I'd just stick with boots, if you get caught in bad weather or you slip and get your foot wet the boots will probably work better for you. If all goes well then you'll be fine with sneakers, but if something goes wrong, I dont know.
When I hiked the Appalahian Trail in '98 I wore one pair of Tecnica boots for 500 miles and then wore Vasque Sundowners for the next 1600 miles. I started my '03 section hike with trail runners then switched to Scarpa Deltas( heavier mid weight full grain leather boot) Here's a few things to consider. Pack weight: There need for heavy boots if you have a light pack. Terrain: You may need good boots to protect you feet from rocks. Weather/seasons: If its summer and you pack is light go with trail runners. If its fall or winter and your pack is heavy go with boots. Experience/leg strength: If you're an experienced hiker that has good ankle/leg strength then go with trail runners. If your leg and ankle strength leave a bit to be desired then go with mid to lighter mid weight boots. In '98 heavier packs(40-50 lbs) and full grain leather boots seemed to be the rule and trail runners and ultra light packs were the exception. This was reversed in '03. I felt like a dionsaur with my 40 lb pack and Scarpa Deltas. If you have strong legs and ankle's go with high top trail runners. If you desire boots then go with Vasque Sundowners. Use wool socks when hiking. Two pair are preferable to one. Wool wicks moisture away from your feet and keeps your feet warm when its cold and cools then when its hot.
Being the nature boy that I am I would be hiking barefoot! But if its through snow id wear well insulated boots and 3 layers of socks.
if i'm going somewhere i always wear my "rossi" boots. when travelling you'll find that many things want to injure you. slips and trips, things falling on your feet , people might want to attack you and having a sturdy pair of boots will give pause for thought as every kick you land will hurt! sorry this all sounds very primitive but we still live in a primitive society so,,, things biting your feet etc. if you're packing weight you'll need the side supports of the boot. my "rossi" boots are the best i've ever tried they fit like a glove and are not expensive unfortunately they i think they are only sold in australia, check out the rossiboots site and look at the rossi eagle.
I don't think there is a hard or fast rule - it's down to personal preference and this is illustrated by the posts here. Some people swear by heavy duty hiking boots for, well - their heavy duty nature. Others - walking shoes, for greater flexibility. And some more still - trainers, just for sheer comfort. I do a lot of running so I'm happy with trainers. I've tried boots for moorland, and whilst they were great for coping with the wetlands and vegetation, they were quite tiresome after a few miles and particulary fatiguing on slopes. I'm going to try trainers+gaiters or something next, and just live with the dampness (they usually get sweaty anyway). Experiment and go what you feel most comfortable with!
I love my boots - not hiking boots, just plain leather ones. Very comfy once worn in (perhaps this is the problem for some of you who don't like boots? you have to wear them constantly for quite a while before they're comfortable), waterproofable, breathable and easy to take care of. The main thing to remember about real leather is that it needs to be looked after. I make my own leather food from beeswax and natural soap, and it works a treat. Nothing can compare to well-mainained leather for comfort; it's like carbon steel vs. stainless.
