Boots or shoes?

[chriscebal2000]

I'm new to backpacking but my fiancé and i are planning a week long trip to yosemite. I read an article that said that most experienced backpackers prefer to use running shoes instead of hiking boots. I was wondering if I could get some input before I invest in some expensive boots. Thanks!

 

[Nick]

Welcome to BCP. From my point of view, I would agree that lightweight shoes seem to be the majority preference nowadays. Not necessarily running shoes though, just not huge heavy leather boots. I definitely prefer a lightweight hiking shoe over a real boot. Check out these recent threads:

http://backcountrypost.com/threads/running-shoes-vs-boots.4263/

http://backcountrypost.com/threads/boots-for-backpackin.4240/

 

[Parma]

Or you can really save money and go barefoot: http://www.barefooters.org/hikers/
Though the doctor visits will probably off set those savings.

 

[Opi]

My Saucony peregrine 4 trail runners with Sof Sol inserts and Salomon low gaiters are a pretty sweet set up. I have narrow feet. No more boots for me! $80 for the shoes(last years model) $20 for insoles and $25 for gaiters. And get some Darn Tough socks. They are awesome!

 

[JoshuaDyal]

I prefer the ankle support, especially because I've been out in the Uintas where off-trail usually means extremely rocky, even scree scrambling, but I still wear synthetic mesh uppers rather than leather. I use Cabela's XPG Mid-hikers, but New Balance, The North Face, and other companies all have comparable ones for just over $100.

Here's what I posted on my blog about this topic a few months ago:

http://thebigoutside.com/ask-me-which-boots-do-you-recommend-for-backpacking-heavier-or-lighter/

There's some discussion from a long-time backpacker on the merits of boots, what kind of wear and when to wear them. This is in contrast to other sites and advice I've read, which focus on the non-boot option significantly. Such as:

http://www.cleverhiker.com/lightweight-gear-basics/episode-8-lightweight-footwear-trekking-poles

https://dave-collins-rzyi.squarespace.com/blog/ditch-boots

In any case, I think they both make some bad, or at least non-universal assumptions. Lanza assumes that it's worth it to folks to go out and buy multiple pairs of expensive footwear. However, most people don't have the luxury of backpacking as frequently as he does. Most people also don't have the luxury of being given all kinds of really pricey bits of gear from manufacturers because he reviews them. I only want one pair of footwear, and I don't want a super expensive pair. I don't want to worry too much about conditions I'm not likely to see since my backpacking season is limited. I don't want to spend too much money, but I don't mind replacing them every few years if necessary.

Frankly, for day hiking, I can't imagine ever not wearing trail-runner type shoes. Since I wear those as my day to day casual and workout shoes anyway, I have three pair of them currently (although I admit that at least one pair is starting to get a bit worn down and I probably shouldn't take them anywhere serious "in the field" anymore.)

Collins, on the other hand, seems to be really focused on the concept of thru-hiking long hikes. The majority of his advice is geared towards that specific paradigm. And sure, he talks about hiking on scree fields and whatnot, and I'm sure that he has in fact done so, but when you're walking long distances on relatively well-maintained trails, then your choice in footwear is going to necessarily be geared towards things that occasional backpackers won't.

That said, my choice is really a lot more like his than it is like Lanza's. Is it possible that if I take my shoes out on long trips in bad conditions that they'll get trashed? Sure, absolutely. If that happens, I'll replace them. But--I have no reason to think that that will happen, given the trips that I have on my docket.

Certainly, what I'm wearing now should stand me in good stead when I go back to the Wasatch and Uintas this summer. It should work well for day hiking (although I may not want to bother with my mid-hikers for day hiking. Depends on how long and how far I'll be going.) They'll be great for a traverse of the Lake Superior National Shoreline or Isle Royale National Park, or exploring Hocking Hills State Park, Cuyahoga National Park, the Smokies or Roans Highlands, the Guadalupe Mountains or in and around the Chisos Mountains, Coyote Gulch or various trails in and around Moab, or the Teton Crest Trail, etc.--in other words, any trail that I have any hope of doing any time in the next five to ten years. I don't know that my boots will last 5-10 years of hiking trips, but if not, I can replace them with something very similar.

Right now, based in part on the fact that I like the brand and in part based on the fact that I like the look of these, these are near the front of my list for boots to replace them with. Someday. Danner Extroverts mid-hikers. Lightweight but tough, synthetic and without a GORE-TEX lining.

After my experience with my current GORE-TEX boots, I may change my mind, though.

 

[fiber]

It doesn't rain much in Yosemite and the tails are normally in good condition. Buy a pair of beefy mid or low day hikers and you will be fine, assuming you don't plan on climbing a lot of mountains with scree fields. I did a week long backpacking trip in the Sierras last summer in Vasque Mantra 2.0. It rained once, and my feet got wet, otherwise I had no problems. Be warned, if you have weak ankles you will want a mid top or high top shoe for added ankle support.

 

[Vegan.Hiker]

I prefer the ankle support, especially because I've been out in the Uintas where off-trail usually means extremely rocky, even scree scrambling...

This was a great post and I agree with almost everything you said with the exception of the part about ankle support. I had read that ankle support was mostly a function of the width of the outsole, rather than the ankle height of the shoe. I was very skeptical when I read that claim. However, when I got my hoka one one trail runners, the first thing I noticed was the width of the outsole. They were actually wider than the outsoles on my northface hiking boots. I was still skeptical as I continued wearing my boots throughout the winter due to the snow. Last weekend, I took the hoka one one's out for their first backpacking test. Trails in NY State are extremely rocky, and the 10 mile overnighter I did was littered with rocky scrambles. To my surprise, my ankles felt just as supported as with my boots, and my soles actually felt a lot more protected and cushioned due to the high stack height. On the downside, they definitely got pretty roughed up considering it was my first trip in them. I had to apply a little bit of gorilla glue already to reinforce a small section where the outsole meets the shoe. Not exactly happy about that considering they were $160. In the end, the test convinced me to stick with trail runners, although I'm not yet convinced I'll be sticking with hoka one one's.

A look at the outsole width of the Hoka One One Stinson ATR trail runners

 

[Nick]

I have found no correlation between shoes with 'ankle support' and actually feeling more support on my ankles. If anything I tend to roll my ankles much more in shoes with it.

 

[andyjaggy]

I was almost a convert to running shoes for hiking, but tried it for a day and absolutely hated it. I was on a pretty well maintained trail but the cushion and comfort were just not there for any sort of rocky terrain. Any weight savings was not worth it in my opinion.

That said I do not like the big heavy high topped boots. I recently picked up a pair of low top Merrill Moab's and really like them. It's a good balance for me.

 

[Devo]

I would have to agree with Vegan.Hiker and Nick. Higher boots doesn't necessarily equal greater ankle support. A nice wide sturdy platform would better help that, low or high top. I like boots because I like something covering my ankles for protection (not necessarily support) as well as for stream crossings and other things.

Its really just a preference though. Check out the threads and read up on what you think you'll like. Also @fiber had good info on location to consider. If you go the shoe route I would check out www.runningwarehouse.com/ and strongly recommend a pair of Hokas or Altras for the reasons Vegan.Hiker laid out. If you go for boots I would check out REI.

Reason for those two stores? Both will allow you to return if not satisfied. Make a decision, then take them out and give a good test, if you feel like you made the wrong choice you can return.

REI will carry trail runners as well but runningwarehouse.com has excellent prices especially if you find an older model. I would for sure do trail runners vs a regular running shoe if you go that route. They will have more appropriate traction as well as a rock plate or stiffer foam for rocks and bumps.

Also make sure you test with a load on your back because that may change what your prefer too! Sounds like a fun trip, have a good time!

 

[JoshuaDyal]

I have found no correlation between shoes with 'ankle support' and actually feeling more support on my ankles. If anything I tend to roll my ankles much more in shoes with it.

I've had mid-top shoes hold my ankle in place a few times before, if they're laced up nice and tight. I But I also agree that the wider, solid outsole is more likely to actually keep you from being in a position where it matters.

 

[George]

I guess the OP has made his decision by now, but I'd choose boots over running shoes. Boots may be more expensive initially, but they'll outlast shoes and if your hiking varies in the future as regards terrain type you'll be covered without any additional expense. Used shoes once carrying a pack and badly sprained an ankle in an unseen pothole on a seemingly smooth surface. Boots have always saved me from this kind of mishap.
Modern boots aren't exactly 'heavy' anyhow. Just my opinion and what works for me.

 

[LarryBoy]

I torched my ankles (particularly my left one, which may very well never go away) on a long distance hike while using mid-hikers. Switched to trail runners and they made all the difference. The lack of "ankle support" (which is a myth, as VeganHiker, Nick, and a few others have pointed out) is more than made up for by the increased nimbleness of your feet. it also forced my ankles to strengthen, rather than sit passively inside a pair of boots. I wear a pair of trail runners in all conditions, from snow to sand to slickrock to trail to boulder fields. Seems to work for me, but feet are very personal, so YMMV

 

[dreamlessleep]

I'm with the "no boot" group. I wear a pair of Vasque Mantra 2.0 and I have to say I love them. Lighter, no pressure on my ankle bone, and plenty of support. Just wear a pair of trail running gaiters to keep out debris in certain areas and you'll be golden, IMO. I used to wear trail runners, but I find the sole of the Mantras keeps the issue of tender feet more at bay when in rocky terrain.