Sneakers on the trail - crazy or am I old-fashioned?

[Kurchian]

I was descending from Mt. Adams over the weekend and I stepped awkwardly on something (there might have been a rock on the trail? ) and rolled my ankle. I limped all the way to Lakes of the Clouds for the night and then down the Ammonoosuc the next day. It was agonizing.

So here are my questions:

1.) I made a point of looking at every hiker I passed. Over one-half had either sneakers or low cut "trail-runner" type boots. Here we are 5000' feet high and the majority of hikers are wearing lightweight shoes. Am I being overly cautious here or are these folks underprepared?

2.) I wear lightweight boots, but they are high cut (NIKE ACG's). Do you think that a boot can save your ankles from sprains or rolls? Or is such an injury just bad luck?

3.) Do leather boots better support your ankles?

 

[David Metsky]

People are different, what works for some will not work for all. I prefer soft boots to stiff leathers in summer over all terrain. Some folks will use trail shoes and some regular running shoes.

1) Without knowing the person's experience level and history of hiking, it's impossible to say if they are unprepared or perfectly OK. I know what I prefer, but folks get along fine in all kinds of footware.

2) Possibly, but not sure. I've seen twisted ankles in plastic boots, so anything is possible. People who hike in low shoes have often claimed that your ankles get tougher without the protection and therefore are stonger and less likely to roll.

3) Possibly, but different people report different results. My anecdotal evidence is that it offers some limited support.

-dave-

 

[Sherpa John]

Great Question.

I had traded in my boots for the low cut trail running sneaks. I guess all in all it depends on the person.

For instance, Sarah has weak ankles. She knows it as it runs in her family. The one time she wore low cut boot hiking.. she got a severe sprain and was on crutches for a week. She is still wearing the air cast! So she now know that from now on she is wearing the high cut boots for the ankle support.

Some folks can do it, some are not able to.. its a matter of comfort, personal safety and at times.. yes... unpreparedness.

Even though I wear the sneaks... if I am doing a long hike in the whites or something where moving swiftly is not in the cards.. I wear the high cuts for the safety.

So.. ya... depends on the person.

 

[blacklab2020]

For years I have been hiking in heavy leather boots... and have loved it. Lately I have tried moving away from this and last year the majority of my hikes were fast and lightweight with gortex trail runners... now i have lightweight boots that come up just higher than my ankles for the support.

I had a serious foot injury 3-4 years ago that still pains me at times and my physical therapist would prefer I use the heavy boots. But I have been fine with the lightweights... PROVIDED I KEEP MY ANKLES & KNEES STRONG.... and I am fine with the change... I do think a little ankle support though is always good. Esp for the whites.

Justin

 

[Raymond]

Ten dollar sneakers with Velcro straps from Ames is all my ladyfriend, Susan, wore until Ames went out of business. She gets them somewhere else, now, but they're still just cheap sneakers with Velcro. She has climbed 92 of the Northeast's 4000-footers in them, including the Adirondack Forty-Six. Yes, and also including Adams, Jefferson, Washington, and Monroe. And Katahdin.

I need boots. I tried walking a short distance up a trail in my so-called trail shoes and the soles were too slippery for me. The first real hiking boots I had were the worst: New Balance Rainier Hikers, which I purchased in 1982. Lots of blisters. Since I retired them in 1992, I've used boots by Vasque, Rockport (they were actually an Italian import), and EMS Gore-tex, all costing about $79, I think, except the Rockports which, at half price, were $50. The first couple times I wore the EMSes I had severe shin bang (Allen and Couchsachraga -- no wonder), but after breaking them in more, they've been fine. I did have my first post-Rainier Hiker blister with them, but they still keep my feet dry.

My son also wears sneakers. He wore some awful things with zippers his mother had bought him for one week back in 2003 during which we hiked Ellen, Mansfield, and Donaldson and Emmons. The poor kid had to stop every few paces to rezip them. No wonder we didn't have time for Seward that last hike.

Susan wore flip-flops and Cam sandals the first time we hiked in to Johns Brook Lodge. I wore running shoes once we were at the lodge, but my boots on the trail.

 

[TCD]

Everyone's different, of course. I've hiked in trail runners for several years. I would say I have no higher incidence of ankle rollover (probably lower) than in boots.

My take:

Most higher cut but lightweight "soft" boots don't really do anything to support your ankles. The fabric uppers are just too soft and flexible to make any meaningful mechanical contribution.

In trail runners, I minimize downhill ankle rollover by watching really closely where I put my feet, and by "duckfooting," turning my feet somewhat to the outside.

A plastic boot, really only useful in winter, provides real ankle support. As Dave Metsky pointed out, even in those, it's possible to turn an ankle.

I have had fewer problems with the trail runners than I did with boots, which got me thinking: Surely our ankles can't be so poorly designed that in all the millions of years we went barefoot, we were prone to ankle rollovers. Which got me looking at bare feet vs. shoes, to try to understand the mechanics of the rollover. I think many boots actually exacerbate the problem. Here's why: Ankle rollover most often (almost always) results from stepping in a location where there is a higher spot (rock, root, etc.) on the medial side of the foot, at mid foot. This is under the arch. Look at a bare foot. Most people have considerable relief, an empty area, on the medial side under the arch. So a bare foot is designed to compensate for irregularites, and minimize rollover. Most "running shoe" and "trail runner" soles are made like a foot, with relief under the medial side of the arch. Most "boot" soles are artificially flat. I believe the artificial flat platform under the medial side of the foot provides a lever, which actually increases the likelihood of ankle rollover if you step on an object in that location.

Thoughts?

 

[forestgnome]

I can't imagine any type of sneaker/trail shoe to handle what my lightweight leather boots do for me. I insist on gaitors, even small ones in summer, to keep pebbles out. Do people wear gaitors with sneakers?

I often get my boots wet up to the ankle, then I just shake the water off. If I did that with sneakers, I'd have wet feet for the rest of the hike.

There is also the danger of cutting/bruising the ankles. On trails, and especially off-trail, I put my feet into some tricky spots and I like the protection of the leather.

It is interesting to see so many hikers with them, but I doubt I'll give up my boots, since my feet don't over-heat and the weight is of no consequence.

Happy Trails

 

[onestep]

Jack Rabbit & Isis

Leather boots? Trail runners? How about barefoot!

The Barefoot Sisters: Isis and Jackrabbit hiked the entire Appalachian Trail from Maine to Georgia--and BACK!! They completed almost all of the hike barefoot.

 

[Frosty]

I often get my boots wet up to the ankle, then I just shake the water off. If I did that with sneakers, I'd have wet feet for the rest of the hike.

Two sides to this, but have to say your feet proably wouldn't be wet the rest of the hike. Sneakers actually dry out fairly rapidly, and in an hour or so you'd be fine.

I prefer low cut boots to sneakers, but have light- and heavy-weight mid-height boots. The problem with them and water is that they are heavy when wet and stay wet a long time.

I like my heavier boots (leather) because as you say you can step in a stream (quickly in and out) and not have the boots get soaked.

But on a downpour day(s), or when the trail itself is a stream, leather boots DO get soaked. And they become vey heavy. Worse, they don't dry overnight, so you put the same heavy boots on the next morning.

Kind of a two-edged sword. The mostly fabric construction that lets sneakers get so wet with one dunking lets then dry rather quickly, and the water (mostly) impermeable leather which keeps your feet dry during quick dunkings keps them wet for a long time once they do get soaked.

I have a range of footwear down to sneakers (NB 806 with good lugs on the soles) to all-leather. My preference is low-cut leather-fabric boots, which I wore on Jefferson last Friday without a problem, though normally I take boots with stiffer soles for rock-hopping hikes.

I think everyone has different preferences and different things work for different people. Try both and pick whicheve suits you best. It is hard to make an informed decision without trying both low-and-light and tall-and-heavy. I stuck with my bomb-proof Merrell Wilderness boots for years until I finally bought a pair of low cuts just to see what all the fuss was about but mostly I think to prove to myself they didn't work like everyone said. The results surprised me.

 

[sapblatt]

ankle strength

As it has been said...it all comes down to ankle strength. some people can handle it, and some cannot. The weight of my boots will never bother me because I need the support.
With that being said...I saw a twenty something woman hiking Camel's Hump last week barefoot. She mus be from a different planet than me!

 

[dms]

Most of my hikes are bushwacks, so I always use my trusty Limmers, a great stable foot bed, and ankle support. I can not imagine bushwacking in light footwear, a lot of times I can't see where my feet are in the thick stuff.

 

[mtn.goat]

In my endless quest to lighten my backpacking/hiking load I ran into this as well. Growing up I did all my big hikes and backpacking trips in full leather boots but did use sneakers on the shorter easier hikes. This year I started doing alot of trail running and in my quest to lighten my load started hiking in trail runners. I found that there is no more of a risk of ankle injuries with the trail runners then with the leather boots. My ankles have strengthened considerably and I find that if i roll my ankle (which seems to happen on every other long trail run) my ankle is only mildly sore the next day and fully healed by the second day. Keep in mind that I think I'm a bit clumsy in foot placement because of my frequent rolls but I can roll my ankle all the way onto the side now and have little to no pain after.

I was also a huge believer in Gore-Tex and recently have changed my ideas concerning it. On a long run I got my feet soaked in a bog/swamp while wearing a pair of non gore-tex/waterproof trail runners and much to my amazement found that my feet did not suffer at all and that my sneakers eventually dried out. This has led me to begin wondering if waterproof boots are even really needed in the summer (when cold temperatures are not an issue) and if a good pair of running sneakers that are very breathable (lots of mesh) would be better than a pair of hot sweaty gore-tex sneakers. In the winter this line of reasoning is pretty much moot due to frostbite, etc.

 

[sp1936]

...I saw a twenty something woman hiking Camel's Hump last week barefoot. She mus be from a different planet than me!

Yeah, I've seen that several times. Amazing.

I wear trail runners everywhere but the Whites. When hiking in the White Mountains, I wear very heavy, high cut leather boots.

Steve

 

[Neil]

Nobody has mentioned sore feet and shoe/boot type. For longer hikes I prefer to have a 3/4 shank under me or the soles of my feet get pretty darn sore. I have Merrel 3/4 shank low tops that are very sturdy but they weigh almost as much as a light boot. I also have a pair of scrambling/climbing boots that weigh a lot but usually let me hike all day pain free.
I never wear the low tops if it's going to be wet. In fact, I would bet that low tops and running shoes contribute to trail widening.
I believe that for most people a nice, snug, ankle high boot decreases the risk of a sprained ankle.

 

[carole]

For me its trail runners until the snow falls

 

[Papa Bear]

I did PatN and Scar Ridge in running shoes. Much easier than heavy boots and there aren't many places for rolling your ankles there. Onestep did the same. He calls them his bushwhacking shoes.

I also used them on "easy" days to rest my feet from my mid-weight Lowas. I have strong feet and ankles (marathoner) so I figure it's no big deal.

My theory is that strong ankles and feet (and legs and on up) are much better protection than what you put on. If however you've had several ankle sprains (where the ligaments tend to get stretched permanently) you may need protection from what you wear.

 

[DougPaul]

Heavy boots that give more ankle support tend to have wider soles than light-weight low cut boots/sneakers. The wider sole gives more leverage on the foot which makes it easier to sprain an ankle. So the heavier boot is both better and worse.

I have hiked in both low-cut and high-cut boots. These days, I generally use a light-weight full-leather high non-gtx boot with a 3/4 shank. The boot upper only gives a limited amount of sprain protection but it also gives side impact protection to my boney ankles. And the high upper also helps to keep mud and grit out of the boots. (I also use a low gaiter.) The sole is sturdy enough to minimize bruising to the soles of my feet. (I generally hike in the Whites--many of the trails are rather rocky.)

If you have strong ankles--try either sneakers/sneaker-boots or full boots. If you have weak ankles, some extra protection from a sturdy high boot is probably useful. Also factor in the nature of the trail. There is a whole range of boots available--choose what works for you.

Doug

 

[Tom Rankin]

After a few ankle twists/sprains (none hiking), I started to do ankle exercises and stretching, almost every day. I'm not saying this is foolproof, but it has worked for me for the last several years. I use light weight boots that go over the ankle.

To me, the stretching is the most important part.

 

[alpinista]

I used to wear leather Scarpa hiking boots, but found them so heavy that I couldn't get a feel for the trail. I felt as though I was wearing cement blocks on my feet. My legs would be very tired at the end of the day, and even several years of wearing them, never competely eliminated blisters.

Last year, I switched to Asolo canvas type of low-cut boots. They have a Vibram sole, and I've used them for hikes in the Prezzies, long backpacks, day hikes, fjording streams. ... You name it. My first hike in them involved the Owl's Head bushwack -- and needless to say, they didn't look new for very long!

I don't think I'll ever go back to full backpacking boots. I find with the low-cuts, I have a better feel for the trail and have yet to twist an ankle (knock on wood!) because I seem to have better balance and foot placement.

 

[truepatriot09]

I'm making the swap to lighter shoes this year. Weight on your back is as much of an influence as anything else. If it's a dayhike, the lighter the better. If you're backpacking, a boot with a higher upper would be more appropriate.

Think about adventure racers. They wear the lightest weight possible footwear through varying conditions for often days at a time. Compared to that if I can't handle a lightweight trail shoe/trail runner, than I need to work on my conditioning. As for a gaiter, at the risk of plugging the company I work for, Timberland, we just developed a new ultra-lightweight adventure racing shoe that has an integrated gaiter...it's pretty cool.

Note to Board Police: I'm not trying to promote, I just wanted to mention the product as it is relevant to the discussion of this thread...

I don't think a high upper is going to do much to prevent you from rolling/spraining your ankle. What it is going to do is give your ankle a little bit of support so it becomes tired less quickly and thus becomes less likely to sprain as you wear down over the course of the hike...