Your First Undestructable Pair Of Hiking Boots (Lightweight, High Friction)

[DuneElliot]

With respect to heavy boots and ankle issues, its sound completely counterintuitive that low cut boots would be better than high cut heavy boots but in my and several others experience its the truth. Tall heavy boots transfer the loads away from the muscular in the foot and load up the ankle when on uneven terrain. Using low cut shoes the bottom of the foot matches the angle of the terrain and most important this musculature gets developed. With my low cut trail runners, I may roll an foot on occasion but its just momentary "on cr*p" and I keep hiking. When I used to roll a foot with heavy boots I would be limping for a week.

Ankles are made to move in all directions and while a bad roll can be painful and dangerous, in general that is the way our legs are supposed to work. If the ankle can't roll as it is supposed to when it needs to that movement can transfer up the leg and force the knee to bend in a way it shouldn't, or put extra stress on other ligaments and muscles that shouldn't be bearing that kind of unusual movement.

[peakbagger]

Talk to any doctor who works with skiers, as the boots got stiffer and taller the forces shifted upwards creating different injuries higher up like knees. Folks used to break legs now they blow out knees.

[BobTheBuilder]

As the best shoe tester in the world, I used to hike in the exact same Merrills, but now am hiking in the exact same Keens. The Keens are a little more comfortable for me because the toe box is a little wider. That's it. I could hike in reasonable comfort on the AT with both.

[higuy111]

Thank you for a very detailed reply! I understand about having boots as lightweight as possible. Although, it's still awesome to have a pair of tough leather boots isn't it?

I have a quiver of shoes for hiking; some very durable and some really light weight and a bunch in between. Good luck with your search, this is what I can tell you:

My Merrells (low tops) are super comfy for "day to day" use but a little too squishy hiking for me... kinda wide.

Northface (low tops) *3rd pair, pretty light and great fit with a decent "shank" for rocky terrain but this is my 3rd pair and usually only use them for day hikes

Lasportiva (mids) insanely light, so comfortable. I wanna wear thees almost everyday during the week. Not what I would use again on super rocky terrain as the sole does not have a very structured shank so foot placement on sharp edged rocks is not so good but doable if careful

Saloman (low tops) eh, a little too narrow for me and not real light; bought em on a whim as they were on sale for super cheap... Not my preference

LaSportiva Omega GTX (high tops) Love em, awesome support but my second heaviest boot. Support galore, near bomber build, fit my feet great.

Asolo 520 (high tops) *3rd pair but I barely wear this pair since finding lighter boots. Bomber, bomber, bomber and you will feel the strength of this all leather boot with each step... it feels like you have ankle weights on after finding a lighter boot.

Just because 100 people say "yadda" boot is the best does not mean that is the one for your foot or hiking style. Find what is comfortable for you with your usual pack weight and enjoy... they are gonna wear out.

Attachment 37958

[Traveler]

Thank you for a very detailed reply! I understand about having boots as lightweight as possible. Although, it's still awesome to have a pair of tough leather boots isn't it?

For me its a good idea to have a pair of tough leather boots. A lot of people have different footwear for different conditions as you can see from the thread so far. I use my heavy leather boots for winter hiking conditions (below 20 degrees and/or if ice or snow is present where I may have to use snowshoes or traction devices), bushwhacking, and hikes that take me above timberline into rock, talus, and scree. For other seasons and types of terrain I will typically shift to a lower shoe or runner.

[LongBlaze2019]

I do have a pair of thicker leather boots that I hike in during the spring. Especially late spring when the Copperheads get really thick. The rest of the year it's either my S2V trail runners or my S2V boots.

Sent from my N9519 using Tapatalk

[Engine]

Ankles are made to move in all directions and while a bad roll can be painful and dangerous, in general that is the way our legs are supposed to work. If the ankle can't roll as it is supposed to when it needs to that movement can transfer up the leg and force the knee to bend in a way it shouldn't, or put extra stress on other ligaments and muscles that shouldn't be bearing that kind of unusual movement.

This is very true. I was hiking behind my wife the other day and I watched her ankle roll significantly a few times. It was significant enough I mentioned it to her because I know it would have been painful to me and she replied that she didn't notice it. Flexible ankles are a blessing I guess...

[PhoenixFire]

I could not agree with this statement more. Excellent chosen name.

[Feral Bill]

[QUOTE=... it's still awesome to have a pair of tough leather boots isn't it?[/QUOTE] As long as they are not on your feet.

[ggreaves]

I have the Salomon 4D GTX, which I really like. However, if you're serious about combating potential blisters, I'd stay away from anything with Goretex. If you get boots or shoes that breathe properly (and anything that's waterproof will NOT breathe in spite of what you've had drilled into your head by marketers), any moisture inside the boot will be driven out by the heat inside. Goretex, or any waterproof barrier, also acts as a vapor barrier and will keep hot feet wet and that will allow blisters to form more easily. This would be my boot of choice... Same fit and performance as the regular 4D's but without the Goretex so your feet will breathe and stay drier over time.

https://www.us-elitegear.com/salomon-forces-quest-4d

[George]

basic problem with "tough / durable / supportive " boots

the sole is stiff and flexes considerably less than the foot

this causes the heel of the foot to "work / rub " against the heel of the boot - almost universally resulting in blisters

30 yrs ago when most hikers did 7-10 mi days this caused less issues - now 15 - 20 mi days are more common

(the skin can repair itself better after 10,000 "rubs" per day than 20,000)

light running shoes flex with the foot from day 1 (no break in) but have a dramatically shorter life - as little as 250 mi

choose your compromise

[Traveler]

basic problem with "tough / durable / supportive " boots

the sole is stiff and flexes considerably less than the foot

this causes the heel of the foot to "work / rub " against the heel of the boot - almost universally resulting in blisters

30 yrs ago when most hikers did 7-10 mi days this caused less issues - now 15 - 20 mi days are more common

(the skin can repair itself better after 10,000 "rubs" per day than 20,000)

light running shoes flex with the foot from day 1 (no break in) but have a dramatically shorter life - as little as 250 mi

choose your compromise

Chafing blisters are indeed "universal" to all boots and shoes, not just heavier leather boots. Some of the worst heel blisters I have experienced have come from trail shoes and runners.

The cure is to reduce or eliminate blister potential is in the selection process, what type of sock(s) should be worn with with each type of footgear, and how to lace footgear appropriately to control foot movement. 30 years ago I was doing 15+ miles per day in heavy boots, which is not a new phenomenon brought on by makers of light shoes.

I do use trail shoes and runners along with the heavier leather boots, they each have unique functions and are used based on many factors including terrain, weather, and load estimations. Using footwear is a lot like learning how to use any other bit of gear or equipment one has with them.

[DuneElliot]

Chafing blisters are indeed "universal" to all boots and shoes, not just heavier leather boots.

That issue is not all encompassing and does not apply across the board. With the right trail runners (Salomon Speedcross) I have never had a blister in all the miles I have spend hiking and backpacking.

[MuddyWaters]

Chafing blisters are indeed "universal" to all boots and shoes, not just heavier leather boots. Some of the worst heel blisters I have experienced have come from trail shoes and runners.
.

Nope.
Blisters are due to many factors
But at reasonable distances feet can condition to on daily basis, they are 100% preventable.

.

I was told that fit / comfort is paramount in not getting blisters. Second is keeping your feet dry.

Maybe...skin is softer when waterlogged. But having hiked multiple days straight with feet wet all day, and never having blister, this is also not totally true, although it can be a serious issue in some circumstances. More applicable to ultra marathon runners, than hiking imo.

I ran 5.5 miles a couple days ago , in rain, feet perfectly happy, no blisters.

Good fit is #1
Can you ever have good fit with thick sock? Nope. Thin tight weave.
Wide toebox so toes dont rub on anything, including each other. The toes move with every step
Snug heel that locks shoe into place
Breatheable mesh shoe. You should feel the wind blow. Nice and cool.
Insole and shoe that works with your feet. Inside should be flat. Many are tilted to help build in arch support.
Light pack, trim body
Clean socks. Thin. Cool. Breezy.

Blisters are tearing of skin away from meat. Pressure. Due to excessive weight, wt carried, repetitions, or friction from poor fit all work against you. Skin doesnt get tougher when you gain 50 lb....

What works at 10 mpd, might not at 20
What works at. 20 lb pack, may not at 40

Many have proven, well fitting breatheable shoes and light wt is all needed fo 20-30 mpd hiking, with no blisters. But the circus of liners, thick socks, boots, goretex , lubricants still continues. Someones doing something right, and someones apparently not. You CAN learn from people that hike thousands of miles per year , if you try.

[Secondmouse]

I agree with the statement that a stiff sole will cause more back-of-the-heel friction than one more flexible.

my first "real" hiking boot was the Vasque Hiker II. other boots derived from Mountaineering boots and actually had a steel or otherwise hardened shank, made for standing in sling ladders. you could feel these move up and down your heel with every step and were guaranteed heel blisters...

for the OP, if you want to try a more supportive and durable shoe that I have found very comfortable and surprisingly affordable is the HiTec Altitude. the come either Water Proof or not.

I got a pair yeeeeears ago and use them for everything, even daily wear and they are still serviceable. they don't look so good now but I still use them as my grass cutting boots and they're still comfortable...

[higuy111]

Hi! Is that a new info? I never heard about it...

Ankles are made to move in all directions and while a bad roll can be painful and dangerous, in general that is the way our legs are supposed to work. If the ankle can't roll as it is supposed to when it needs to that movement can transfer up the leg and force the knee to bend in a way it shouldn't, or put extra stress on other ligaments and muscles that shouldn't be bearing that kind of unusual movement.

[DuneElliot]

Hi! Is that a new info? I never heard about it...

Well think about it...ankles move 360*, knees don't. If your ankle doesn't roll the way it needs to due to the preventative structure of a stiff boot, something else has to give and that something is often not designed to move in that direction. This is not an argument for or against boots, but a thought about how the body works.

[Rabbi]

I hike in boots. Danners no less! The horror!!!

You are the only one that is going to be standing in your boots or shoes. You are the only one that will know what works for you. At the end of the day, if you got as far as you wanted and intended to go while walking, it's a good day and you made the right decision in footwear.

Wear whatever trips your trigger.

[higuy111]

May I ask, why is it that now longer hikes are more common that 30 years ago?

basic problem with "tough / durable / supportive " boots

the sole is stiff and flexes considerably less than the foot

this causes the heel of the foot to "work / rub " against the heel of the boot - almost universally resulting in blisters

30 yrs ago when most hikers did 7-10 mi days this caused less issues - now 15 - 20 mi days are more common

(the skin can repair itself better after 10,000 "rubs" per day than 20,000)

light running shoes flex with the foot from day 1 (no break in) but have a dramatically shorter life - as little as 250 mi

choose your compromise

[higuy111]

Well, then ankle support makes no sense... Isn't it possible to strengthen ankles so they wouldn't need support? Or is it still safer to have ankle support, even though knees are in danger?

That's really interesting info, thank you

Well think about it...ankles move 360*, knees don't. If your ankle doesn't roll the way it needs to due to the preventative structure of a stiff boot, something else has to give and that something is often not designed to move in that direction. This is not an argument for or against boots, but a thought about how the body works.