I currently have fairly heavy (57 oz) Montrail Blue Ridge GTX hiking boots. I've read how lots of people prefer trail runners instead of boots for their lower weight and comparable ankle support. I'm very interested in moving to trail runners.

That said, is there a pack weight those who use trail runners would instead wear boots?

My concern is that I carry ~10 lbs of photography gear (tripod, camera body, 2-3 lenses, filters, batteries, etc.), so even if I do reduce my standard backpacking gear significantly, boots would still be a better option unless I can get under X lbs total. What is X? Assume fairly rocky terrain in the Sierras.

Thanks,
Mike

Edited by piser on 01/24/2010 19:11:12 MST.

Pack weight if irrelevant for me. I also don't haul 80 lbs loads though.

I carried 43 lbs in the Sierra in trail runners just fine. I've worn boots with a 20 lbs load because the terrain dictated that I do so.

It will depend more on the terrain than the weight for me as I am rarely over 25lbs now. Any sort of scrambling and I use a leather boot to protect the feet. Groomed trails I use trail runners based on the above weight proximity. I would use a higher cut, stiffer shoe if I was into the mid 30's or higher I suspect. That may or may not mean a more traditional boot.

> is there a pack weight those who use trail runners would instead wear boots?

No.

Cheers

When I first started backpacking I had to wear boots(Montrail torre) because I would roll my ankle several times on a trip with lighter footwear. It didn't hurt at first but after a while I would start feeling it.

When I started lightening my pack weight I went to mid height trail runners and didn't have much of the same problem. I contributed it to the the lighter pack.

A few weekend ago I did a overnight with a pack full of winter gear probably weighed 35 lbs. or more. Which was my traditional 3 season pack weight before going UL. I also wore low height trail runners on that trip and never rolled my ankle. I guess I built some muscle in my legs and that took care of the problem.

A good pair of boots allthough not the most durable are Montrail Cirrus GTX. That was the last footwear I would consider boots that I have worn. They provided just as much support as the Torres but at a much lighter weight. They are no longer made but I see them from time to time on closeouts and sales. I did a seach and found them on Mammothgear.com for $75.

Joseph

On the trail, I wouldn't wear boots unless I got into pack weights that I frankly just wouldn't carry - like over 60 lbs. Off the trail, I can see going to boots (light boots, though, nothing over 3 lbs/pr) if it was going to be a lot of talus and scree and I'd be carrying 40 lbs or so. And for me, it's not about the ankle support - I don't give much credence to ankle support anyway in any boot you can comfortably walk in. It's about sole stiffness under the arch and the ability of the sole to to keep sharp points from making my feet sore. I've done a lot of off-trail in the Sierra in trail runners, and with a pack up to 30 lbs it's okay, especailly the nice slabby stuff - but talus and big loads would push me into light boots.

None. I made the switch to trail runners when I was still carrying 45+ pounds (taking our young daughter with us.) Worked fine.

Roger +1.

No amount of weight would make me wear boots.
But I have pretty strong ankles.
Trail Runners for on trail.
Approach shoes like La Sportiva Exum Ridge for off trail.
I even do summer snow in these plus a pair of Katoolas.

Only serious cold weather snow and ice would make me use boots.

I wear mine a lot. Inov8 390 GTX...

What's a boot?

On trail I wear trail runners.

For kicking steps in hard snow, extensive scree skiing,
or lots of boulder fields, boots. Trail runners don't
hold up and don't protect toes from turning boulders
or step kicking.

+1 dave olsen's answer

Shoes -> boots when I want to kick things :-)... weight I carry not a factor.

The one thing weight would do is encourage me to switch from my normal ultra flexible sole shoes (inov-8, vibram five fingers) to something with more arch support. A few years ago I had to carry a heavyweight backpacker's pack while he helped his daughter out. A couple miles with 80lb made my feet really tired.

--Mark

Edited by verber on 01/26/2010 00:32:21 MST.

I like Dave Olsen's answer, too. I would probably switch to boots in the Sierras around 45 lbs, though, just based on the odds that I'd be scrambling on some rocks at some point and would want the stiffer sole to protect the bottom of my feet.

> I'd be scrambling on some rocks at some point and would want the stiffer sole
> to protect the bottom of my feet.

But do you need boots to get the stiffer soles? I have found quite a few low-cut joggers (generic term) with quite soft soles, and quite a few with stiff soles.

That doesn't answer the Q of whetehr feet need protecting from rocks etc. Many walkers wear Vibram five-fingers; many walkers here in Oz wear Dunlop Volleys. Both have extremely soft soles, but their wearers seem quite happy with them.

(Bonus point: Dunlop Volleys (<$20) really drive devotees of big heavy boots up the wall! They also irritate the major leather boot companies.)

Cheers

Imagine I am already carrying more weight on my back than I want to. Why would I, at this point, want to add more weight to each foot?

Edited by Derekoak on 01/26/2010 02:41:36 MST.

I've been trying out various footwear (hiking sandals, running shoes, trail runners, walking shoes, lightweight boots) that I already own, and find that my midweight leather boots are more comfortable and allow me to go further without blisters. I have a set of new lightweight trail runners that I'll try later this week or early next week, but so far the midweight leather boots are still my choice of footwear for any load. I was hoping it would be different, and maybe further testing will prove otherwise, but so far my feet are saying they prefer boots.

Removed

Edited by Red_Fox on 01/28/2010 06:42:28 MST.

I have found that the lighter the shoe, the more agile I am. With boots I occassionaly "trip." I don't fall, but it causes a stutter step. Doesn't happen with light shoes.

When hiking on fields of volcanic rock (common in some desert areas), the sharp rocks tear up the soles of light shoes. This doesn't hurt my feet, but does shorten the life of the shoe.

I will never hike in boots again, other than snow. And this year I hope to do some experimenting with Gore-Tex runners and several types of sock systems/gaiters in snow. We shall see if that works out.

I've been backpacking in trail runners for many years. Though I can no longer imagine carrying a 40+ pound pack, even at that weight, I would continue to wear trail runners.

Some may tell you that boots provide better ankle support, but I haven't found that to be the case. I suppose if you are climbing hard packed snow, you might be able to kick better steps with boots, but I'd rather carry my lightweight Camp ice axe and chop steps and keep the weight off my feet.

Agility and keeping the weight off of your feet are huge benefits of wearing trail runners. In 2005 on my JMT thru-hike I met several people coming over Forester Pass (on snow) with sandals and they were doing just fine.

I think a lot depends on how strong your ankles are and how careful you hike. If you have weaker ankles, then stiffer boots makes sense. A lot of lightweight boots are stiff, though, so there isn't an exact, one to one correspondence. With lighter shoes, you often have less protection against rocks. This requires more care when hiking. I personally only use boots in the snow. I've tried various lightweight boots (or shoes) but nothing provided the slush protection and ability to kick steps like my current pair of midsize, all leather boots. To be fair, I've had lighter boots, but they didn't fit me well.

I wouldn’t say a pack weight on its own is my indicating factor, it would be purpose and season. If I’m carrying Rock&Ice gear I’m probably wearing automatic crampon compatible boots hence the necessity of boots. Winter climbing necessitates boots for warmth, kicking steps, etc. Summer time can be the same gear weight but not require boots. My ropes alone weigh 12.9 lbs so that plus biners, pro, etc is stout but boots wouldn’t help with the weight. STRONG ANKLES AND FEET DO!

Hi Eugene

> my midweight leather boots are more comfortable and allow me to go further without blisters.
That is probably a function of how wide your footwear is, rather than what it weighs. Narrow shoes => blisters.

Cheers

I used to do a lot of climbing in Washington and British Columbia. For a lot of these trips I was carrying 70 to 80 pounds of gear, food and climbing equipment. From about 1975 on, I almost invariable used running shoes (remember the Nike Waffle Trainers?) for trail approaches and also on mild off trail hiking. Never felt the need for boots until we got to the rock, snow and ice level.

Ahh, the mighty Dunlop Volley. Love those things.

If only we could get them in the US....

> If only we could get them in the US....
The postage is a killer!

Cheers

I've been acclimatizing my feet to my Vibram FiveFingers for hiking this summer. I will still probably wear boots for shale scrambles (maybe?) but I can see wanting to do a lot of my hiking in the Vibrams. There are certainly people who carry 40# in Vibrams, the question I have is if there is any safety sacrifice in doing so?

I have hurt myself at various times in my life so that right now I only have one intact ligament in my left ankle and even that has been severely strained. After years of insisting I needed to wear boots because of the imagined ankle support I finally made the switch to trail runners a few years ago. While wearing boots I would twist, roll and turn my ankle several times per trip. Since the switch I think I may have rolled my ankle once a couple years ago. The difference is in the stability of the shoe. The trail runner is much more stable and much harder to roll off the sole. I went through years of stiff boots and braces nothing came close to working as well as just the trail runners. The myth of the ankle stability that boots supply needs to be erased and replaced with more up to date information. Of course this is my opinion and my experience YMMV.

Thomas,
There are probably many reasons for your findings, but is it that trail runners are in fact more stable, or is it because they offer more sensitivity, allowing us to feel and adjust our movements accordingly and consciously? The latter, I think, is much more helpful in the prevention of rolling ankles and such. With boots and harder lugged soles, we feel less, and therefore have less control and awareness of what's beneath our feet. As the headline of your post said, it gives us a "false security."

That being said, each of us may have different findings with trail runners vs boots. When I'm in the forests or flat rock, I use trail runners. This last month I did a trip in the Superstitions where it is extremely rocky, uneven, and more loose rocks than you can shake a stick at. I used trail runners, but found that the softer sole may not have been the best choice because I could feel all the rocks through my shoes a little too much! I wanted a more rugged sole, but even for that I probably wouldn't have taken full-on boots.

My 2 cents.

I'm not sure what qualifies as heavy hiking boots. I currently use a pair of old Vasques and would not trade that type of footwear for anything. I prefer the protection of a boot. It keeps me from banging my ankles into rocks (that is extremely painful for me, not sure why) and I roll my ankles less. I prefer the extra resistance when climbing/descending steep inclines. It also keeps dirt out of my socks. If the terrain is flat, smooth and rock free, I might be okay in low top shoes.

Now, those old “traditional” hiking boots from the early eighties I gave up on after only wearing them a few times. Those things were tanks, even back then! I still have them collecting dust...

But, I use to ALWAYS wear a high top shoe. I still prefer them, but they look silly on an old guy at work. ;^)

After hearing a comment by a Podiatrist “ that boots do not stop ankle sprains any more that low top shoes do” I decided to do some research to see what information I could find out relating to this subject.

Many of the articles that I found spoke about that boots are better for avoiding sprained ankles but did but this was anecdotal as the articles did 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 abstracts from some papers

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). I two recently published meta-analysises, it was a;so concluded that the role of footwear in the prevention of ankle sprains was not clear (Quinn et al. 2000).

I summery, although a protective influence of foot ware is suggested from the results of biomechanical studies, footware without addidtioanl 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 provde 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

Tony, I note that all the articles you cited referenced high top SHOES, not boots. Given that there are many construction differences between shoes and boots, I think that is a significant difference and that it would be erroneous to conclude shoes and boots of similar heights would have the same tested results.

In extensive reading I did years ago I found that the height of the footwear doesn't have nearly as much effect on the footwear support as the midsole. In other words, it's the "stiffness" and protection underfoot, not around the ankle, that makes the major contributions in added stability and protection of a boot. Most shoes, of course, do not have added stiffness/stability/protection underfoot... that would bring them to the realm of boots.

> Despite this biomechanical evidence, clinical trials are inconclusive as to the
> clinical benefit of high top shoes in the prevention of ankle sprains.
So why do clinical trials give different results from biomechanics theory?

The reason is that biomechanics is only part of the story. Biomechanics misses out completely on factors such as fatigue due to the greater weight, decreased sensitivity due to rigidity and clumsiness, reduced ability to control foot placement in tricky terrain due to greater weight, and other factors due to the presence of a large lump of heavy insensitive stuff on the end of your foot.

Cheers

Hi Brad,

Tony, I note that all the articles you cited referenced high top SHOES, not boots. Given that there are many construction differences between shoes and boots, I think that is a significant difference and that it would be erroneous to conclude shoes and boots of similar heights would have the same tested results.

In the articles the term "high top shoes" includes boots.

Tony

It is, obviously, difficult to determine the benefit of high top type shoes (including boots) to ankle support. I have never sprained an ankle when hiking. I have fallen because I rolled my ankle. I found that I did so less often in boots. Now, that is not the only variable so I can’t say for sure that the high top design of the boot is making the difference. They MAY actually provide additional support. However, this benefit would not show up in any of the above type studies.

Since I gain additional benefits it doesn’t matter to me. If reducing the risk of ankle sprain is the only advantage YOU perceive you will gain from a high top type shoe, you may want to seriously consider something else. There are more advantages/disadvantages to shoe type than ankle support and weight. :^)

Edited by Hitech on 01/28/2010 15:31:35 MST.

What I found is that, for me, the trail runners are in fact more stable. It is not that I can feel it going and pull it back. It is that it never goes in the first place. Maybe there is some unconscious thought going into it but I definitely haven't consciously thought about it in a few years.

The only trail runner I have used is the Montrail Hardrock. I found something that worked for me and I kept it. Other trail runners may not be as stable or as stable for me if I was to try them. Or there may be another brand that is even better but as I haven't tried them I have no way of knowing.

With the heavy boots and with an ankle brace I was trying to stop my ankle from rolling several times a day. Now that I switched it, thankfully, is no longer a problem. I have found this to be true while walking the wide open flat expanses of WY or boulder hopping in the ravines of the Black Hills.

I can certainly see how my original response could be taken that this is the be all end all of the discussion. My intent was to point out that people who are having problems like this have options and they may seem counterintuitive at first.

I'm an avid fan of hiking in trail runners, and have been doing so for over a decade. And I still wear boots sometimes.

I'm an outdoor guide, and workers comp only covers related injuries if I was wearing boots. That's reason enough for me. But another good reason is that my pack is often 70-90 pounds, and we hike off trail. That's another great reason for boots. On my own, I typically wear trail runners if my pack is below 45 pounds. On my cross country sierra jaunts, I've been thinking more and more about switching to a light boot though.

I hiked the AT for a few days last April in New Balance 810s. It snowed and got cold but my feet were okay with three pairs of wool socks.

But 3 out of the 4 hikes I did in those things I found myself stepping in streams or getting rained on. I wished that I had waterproof shoes. So this year I found a pair of lightweight waterproof boots at Bass Pro (Red Wings).

Maybe this April on the AT I won't need 3 pairs of socks and maybe I won't have to dry my shoes out by the fire when I inevitably step in a stream.

Wouldn't smell sweet either :)

First of all, what is a boot? I would say a shoe more than ankle height. Doesn't say much, eh?

As to ankle support, IMHO, a boot needs to be 8" tall and have a snug lace-up top, like most military boots. That is usually accompanied by a big heavy sole, etc. That doesn't need to be the case. There are a lot of "tactical" boots made with running shoe type materials that are light and tall.

I wouldn't wear a tall boot anyway-- too hot, too constricting, and the "tactical" ones are usually junk.

What I think needs to be considered is support for the feet, helping support the bones and smaller muscles in the foot and supporting the lower ankle by not allowing it to roll inward and collapse along with the arch in the classic "flat feet" syndrome. I also want something to prevent stone bruising on the bottoms of my feet.

Pack weight is just one aspect. Body weight, age, existing joint and muscle issues like arthritis, tendinitis, or plantar fasciitis are all factors in shoe choice.

Given those factors, I prefer a light boot with a stiffer sole or shank over true trail runners. If I were younger and in better condition, a trail runner might work well. In any case, I'm not carrying more than 25 pounds and try to keep the load closer to 20. I do want the bottom support and protection for my aging feet.

I went to search on pack weight for typical US Infantry to see what is possible (rather than comfortable) and ran across an article at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_01-15_ch11.htm that is a real mind-blower. The typical warm weather pack load is 91 pounds! Even given that the bearer is young and in good condition, that is quite a burden to haul in what I consider to be crappy military boots-- I have a pair and my light hiking boots are 1000x times better!

I worked on a research project in the Sierras for many summers where we toted 60-70 pound loads around for a week at a time on and off trail. Like everyone else in our group, I used Trail runners exclusively. They're plenty tough enough and keep your feet much fresher then boots. I also use a set of Superfeet inserts to give them added structure. I find the plastic heal helps smooth out rock ridges. I've had minimal issues twisting my ankles... probably about the same rate as I did with boots.

I'd probably only want boots if weather is an issue.

Edited by HomerJay on 01/30/2010 15:05:51 MST.

"These studies support the use of high top shoes for ankle sprain prevention because of their ability to limit extreme ranges of motion"

My own personal experience leads me to believe that a properly designed higher top lightweight shoe, such as the Montrail Namche or the Inov8 Roclite 370/90 contributes to prevention of ankle sprains for exactly the reason cited above-they limit extreme ranges of motion. I have experienced a number of ankle rolls using them where the motion was arrested just short of the point where ligaments would have been stretched to the point of pain. Had I been wearing a low top shoe I would certainly have sprained my ankle. I am pretty certain that the reason has to do with the design of the shoes. There are diagonal reinforcing bands running from the shoe lace eyelets back down to the sole of the shoe that enable one to draw the fabric/band of the upper tightly around the ankle and instep in a manner that limits inversion without compromising the ability of the foot to flex within normal range of motion. These shoes also have fairly good lateral torsional rigidity, which inhibits the tendency to roll in the first place. Both brands weigh in at less than two pounds in a size 10, so I feel like I have the best of both worlds. One person's experience.

George W. Sears a/k/a Nessmuk was using and advocating lightweight footwear in Woodcraft and Camping way back in 1920. The heaviest footwear he recommends in that book are single soled leather ankle boots with a single vamp and upper.

I've carried substantial "family camping" loads on established trails in the Cascades and established trails and beaches on the Olympic Coast wearing Chacos. I was conscious of my footwear choice, however, and was careful.

I do most of my trail hiking in sandals or running shoes, but I've only twisted an ankle once in 45 years. Off trail and in the mud and snow, I prefer unlined, single layer leather boots that fit for protection. Currently I'm using some Chippewa's that I got for $100 for those applications. They are probably very heavy by BackpackingLight standards, but are relatively light as lug soled leather boots go.

Oh, I also have a pair of Israeli canvas boots from www.zahal.org. I use them with green Superfeet, and they are great. About $50 shipped, IIRC.

See http://www.zahal.org/products/scout-commando-boots?path_parent=153379

Edited by rudodriver@gmail.com on 02/20/2010 13:38:21 MST.