PureBound.com reviews Southbounders

After walking 2,000 miles

The choice of footwear is one of the most personal a hiker has to make. What we wear on our feet – if we choose to wear anything at all – has a profound effect on the action of walking, which is the most fundamental part of what we are doing. Comfort, cleanliness, hygiene and economics all should be considered in our decision.

Still the norm for most hikers, hiking boots vary from lightweight fabric models to heavyweight leather. I’m not considering those very rigid boots designed to take a full crampon as I don’t consider them to be suitable for hiking. There are a few variables to consider with boots, including the stiffness of the soles and construction of the upper part of the boot (uppers).

Firstly, the stiffness of the sole: Picking up a few different boots and flexing the sole by hand, quickly shows a wide range of flexibility - with the lighter boots being almost as pliant as sneakers and the heavier models being very hard indeed to flex. These stiff soled boots do a very thorough job of isolating you from the terrain below your feet – walk over jagged rocks in them and you will barely feel them. People tend to buy them for this very reason. There are several downsides though: This isolation can also be considered ‘numbness’ - one loses the feel of the ground beneath the feet - giving less control over foot placement and less feel for the available traction. The overall effect being that one is clumsier and less nimble on one’s feet the stiffer the sole is. Furthermore, to walk ‘naturally’ the foot needs to flex: when the foot is placed it is approximately ‘flat’, but as the stride progresses, the toes remain in contact with the ground and the heel lifts. Now, it is possible to walk with flat feet, but it certainly isn’t natural. The more resistance the boot gives to the foot’s natural flex, the less natural, and less efficient, a gait one has to adopt. The more miles one is covering, the bigger a handicap an inefficient, unnatural stride becomes. It’s not always apparent in a couple of laps of the outfitter’s sales floor, but over twenty miles of hiking it makes a big difference. A flexible sole allows one to walk naturally and though they don’t grant same kind of passive protection against rocks and other protrusions – one is better able to step in such a way that the worst of their effects are avoided. It is a matter of relying on one’s own skill and judgement rather than on a perceived sense of invulnerability that the equipment offers – that is, active avoidance is better than passive protection. A potential consequence of hiking in stiff-soled boots is an increase in the erosion of the trail compared to the use of more pliant soles.

Secondly, upper construction: The two main options available are fabric and leather. This is complicated by the fact that both are available with or without waterproof-breathable lining (typically Gore-Tex). The design of the boot upper dictates how well it keeps water out, how well it lets moisture escape, how likely it is to cause blistering and the degree of ankle support it offers. Fabric alone doesn’t offer significant water resistance and this is often off-putting to buyers. The upside is that once wet, they will dry quickly. Leather offers a level of resistance that depends upon the thickness of the leather and how recently they have been treated with a waterproofing solution or wax. The problem comes in extended use in wet conditions: Though leather can offer impressive water resistance, it often loses the battle and becomes soaked through. Once this happens, it can be difficult to get them dry again and after a number of days in damp, heavy boots they don’t seem quite so smart. The addition of a waterproof-breathable line gets around this problem somewhat. They remain waterproof pretty much indefinitely, though the outer fabric can become sodden – making leather boots heavier. The downside to these linings is the reduced ability for moisture to leave the boot. The breathability is a long way from being perfect and that can lead to hot, sweaty feet. Water can still get in through the opening in the top of the boot and the addition of gaiters to prevent this can lead to sweaty ankles and sweatier feet still. Should lined boots get wet inside, they will take longer than unlined boots to dry - this again becomes more significant on longer trips. The desirability of these liners really comes down to the weather and trail conditions, length of trip and the physiology of the wearer (i.e. how ‘hot’ their feet are).

The tendency of boots to cause blistering is dependent on a combination of factors. If a pair of boots fit well or perfectly, one will experience little or no discomfort regardless of their construction. However, it is usually the case that the fit is not quite perfect and sometimes that it is just plain wrong. In these cases something has to give – namely the boot or the foot. The sturdier the boot, the less inclined it is to give and the more likely that the foot will be the loser in the encounter. This is the reason that thicker boots require a longer ‘breaking-in’ period. This term refers to what is essentially a war of attrition in which the boot is little by little forced to conform to a shape acceptable to the foot over a prolonged period of time.

The issue of ankle support tends to be the one at the centre of most of the arguments over footwear. There has long been popular support for the idea that going walking requires the wearing of boots to bolster the ankles and prevent injury. Before I discuss this notion, I’ll quickly look at the properties of the boots themselves - how much support is offered to the ankle by a given boot is dependent upon the details of its design and to some extent defies generalisation based upon the material used in its construction. For hiking boots (rather than those designed for ice-climbing and similar), I believe the amount of protection they offer the ankle against sprains, breaks, twists and such to be rather less than many would suppose - certainly enough people wearing boots encounter these problems to dispel any thought that the boots themselves render the wearer impervious to such injuries. Besides, each year hundreds of people are completing long-distance trails wearing nothing more substantial than sneakers without experiencing these problems. This surely eliminates any notion that the ankle support offered by boots is essential to safe hiking. Admittedly, there is the added complication that many of those suffering injuries are carrying heavy packs and most of those wearing sneakers have gotten their pack-weight to a more manageable level. However, I consider the carrying of a pack sufficiently heavy to greatly increase the risk of injury to be quite unnecessary on the overwhelming majority of backpacking trips. I am firmly of the belief that the problem many people face are that they are simply not used to walking on uneven ground and, as such, the body’s natural ability to do so remains undeveloped. The stabilising muscles and the neurological system that controls them are hardly needed in most of our modern lives and so they never reach their potential. The key to hiking safely lies not in throwing ever more passive protection at the problem and relying on equipment to carry the burden of protection, but to train the body and make use of its remarkable ability to adapt to conditions and make light of them. If it gives reassurance to wear boots while these changes are happening then so be it, but eventually it is for the best to overcome this belief in their necessity for an activity that the human body is so perfectly evolved to tackle without.

An increasingly popular choice with hikers setting out on the long-distance trails and often those that set out with boots will swap to sneakers once they’ve built up their confidence/conditioning and grown weary of their boots. Trail running shoes are a mildly specialised form of sneaker – the differences tend to be limited to a more aggressive outsole, designed for good traction in off-road use, slightly increased torsional stiffness, and some additional reinforcement in the upper that protects both the shoe and foot against striking obstacles. The biggest difference though tends to be the cost - specialisation comes at a price.

The differences between models of shoe tend to be more subtle than is typically the case with boots. Things to consider include the breathability of the upper – look for an airy mesh upper if you find your feet get hot easily or are heading to warmer climates. Shoes are now commonly available with waterproof linings and many find these very appealing. However, while they may keep feet drier when hiking in heavy rain or wet grass, they do not breathe as well as unlined shoes and will take longer to dry once they do get wet inside. The price one pays for this additional ‘protection’ is that they tend to be less comfortable in the majority of conditions. A better bet for most is to ignore the lined shoes – wet sneakers dry remarkably quickly when on the move and really aren’t as uncomfortable as one might suppose. The action of hiking effectively pumps the worst of the water out through the body of the shoe and the heat generated by the foot soon evaporates the remainder. The one situation when waterproof-lined shoes might be welcome is for extended hiking in snow, when they will prove warmer than standard shoes.

Shoes rarely cause anything like the level of blistering and other foot problems that can be evident to boot wearers. Because the bodies of sneakers are relatively pliant, ‘break-in’ periods are typically short or non-existent, making it easy to change to a new pair during the course of a hike without slackening one’s pace. The range of outlets that stock sneakers is also greater than for boots, though a choice of specialised trail runners may not always be quite so ready. My experience of discomfort has been limited to rubbing at the back of an old pair of shoes where the padding had finally worn away. Even this is no problem if I wear socks that cover the area rather than my usual ankle-socks.

Shoes are marginally more prone to the ingress of trail-debris than boots, but it is much easier to take shoes on and off to remove same than is the case with boots – when it is much more likely to remain in there causing irritation until the next planned stop. Some trail runners are equipped with so called ‘scree-collars’. These are elasticated collars around the tops of the shoes, designed to prevent loose debris entering the shoe – like a permanent gaiter. I’ve tried a pair fitted with these and didn’t take to them. Debris still got in and the shoes proved much more difficult to take on and off. They were also less comfortable than shoes without this feature.

Be aware when choosing shoes whether they have been designed for training and everyday use or for racing. Racing shoes will tend to have a reduced weight at the expense of cushioning in the midsole. Which one prefers is a matter of choice, though for hiking large mileages I find the additional comfort of ‘standard’ shoes to be more desirable than the marginal (typically <30%) reduction in weight offered by racing models.

There are plenty of manufactures to choose from, so experimentation is the name of the game. For those wanting a ‘safe’ option to get them started, New Balance offer a consistently excellent range of shoes and do so in a range of width fittings.

I’ve not yet tried sandals for extended periods, but I’ve hiked enough in them to know they’re a viable option. The main difference between hiking in sandals and sneakers is that the foot is open to the elements and unprotected from rocks and roots. However, there is a limit to how much protection our feet need from the environment. Our feet don’t mind the rain and additional warmth can easily be provided by wearing socks, though Billy’s feet sweat in sandals even in cold weather. That we should probably walk a little more carefully than usual is no bad thing and a good habit to get into. Many models are well cushioned and some even incorporate a degree of toe protection to help avert those occasional and very painful stubs. An advantage of sandals is that there is no need to dry out after a storm or a river crossing – and never will you have to pull on still-soggy footwear after a cold damp night. Indeed the ease with which sandals can be taken on and off is a major advantage.

There are potential downsides though: Without the enveloping fabric and lacing of shoes or boots, the foot is far more reliant on the friction between its sole and the sandal to maintain position between the two. On steep slopes, the tendency can be for the foot to ‘slip off’ of the sandal. Blistered ankles also seem to be more likely in sandals than in shoes, due to the reduced contact area with the foot, so it is best to experiment before adopting them. However if they do start to rub the ankle, the rear strap can be undone, placed under the heel, and the sandal worn in a flip-flop configuration.

When choosing footwear of any type, remember that it is how well it fits your foot that matters. Don’t get carried away by rave reviews or recommendations – if the fit isn’t right for you then find something else. The amount of leeway one has in the fit depends upon the type of footwear – heavy leather boots need to be very well matched to the wearer else the consequences can be awful. Light fabric boots or sneakers give a larger margin for error as they more easily conform to the foot. Be aware that different manufacturers tend to cater for different foot shapes. Seeking out knowledgeable sales staff and trying on as many different models as possible is the way to go – at least until you’ve figured out what works for you.

Generally, the lighter one’s footwear, the less effort and energy required to hike a given distance. Aim as light as possible – within reason. Buying cut-down racing shoes may tip the balance too far away from comfort, but boots are a different matter – if you’re going to wear them, seek out the lightest models on the market and avoid being led into buying something heftier than necessary.

The feet can take a lot of punishment in a day’s hiking. Over the course of a thru-hike this can add up and leave the feet tender and the toes numb for months after. The cushioning offered by footwear can make a big difference to this. The contrast in hiking in a pair of 500 mile old shoes and a brand new pair is enormous. Over the course of the miles the cushioning midsole becomes compressed and ceases to do its job. We found 500 miles to be about the limit for a pair of trail runners before we decided it was worth investing in a new pair. This figure will vary depending on the terrain and mileage being covered, the resilience of the shoe, and the wearer’s hiking style, comfort threshold, and budget. Even after all these miles, the shoes we discarded often looked fine, with the soles and uppers in good shape. Indeed, I mailed mine home and still wear them for short runs and hikes where the reduced cushioning is not an issue – the only exception being a pair that had thin treads bonded to the soles and which eventually peeled off, leaving the soles smooth and the shoes useless. It is quite feasible to extract >1000 miles from a pair and to hike the Appalachian Trail on a couple of pairs without serious problems.

It is the case with boots too that the midsoles eventually become compressed, though everything else is in good shape and will last fine for thousands more miles. People are far less inclined to replace an expensive pair of boots in apparently fine condition than relatively cheap sneakers, so they hike on in them. The boots I wore on my first AT hike feel as hard as my used sneakers after the same number of miles and I wouldn’t have fancied wearing them for another 1600miles of a thru hike. However, it is again down to individual user whether this reduction in comfort is cause enough to change them. It is quite realistic to thru hike on a single pair of boots. So long as you choose wisely, there is no clear-cut economic case to sway a budget-conscious wearer to either shoes or boots. Just avoid buying an ill-fitting pair of boots that have to be abandoned and replaced - an expensive mistake I made myself early on.

Cleaning and hygiene

Boots, sneakers and even sandals pick up dirt and odour in the course of hiking and this can eventually reach problem levels – where the odour becomes quite unbearable and the dirt quickly pervades into clean socks, reducing their comfort. The dirt also clogs up the fabric of the uppers and prevents them breathing as well as when they are clean. Odours will be caused by bacteria growing within those fertile microcosms formed by our shoes, socks and feet. The environment is moist, warm and there is plenty of organic material – dead and alive - to provide a ready breeding ground for undesirables. Bacteria are not the only colonists to contend with – funguses also thrive and often with worse consequences than undesirable odour. Athlete’s foot is an unpleasant condition to pick up and even trench foot can be encouraged if the environment remains sufficiently damp for a prolonged period (though I personally know of no cases of hikers suffering). Feet exposed to prolonged damp can suffer another problem. The skin softens the feet become more vulnerable to blistering and damage through abrasion.

For these reasons, it is desirable to clean our footwear periodically and to avoid creating an excessively moist environment. In general, the better the ability of our footwear to keep out the external environment, the worse the ability to allow moisture out. For these reasons we favour sneakers or even fabric boots as these are easy to wash during a town stop - we’ve even gotten away with throwing our sneakers into the washing machine (though care and common sense should be exercised here). We also avoid waterproof membranes as these lead to a warmer, damper environment than in shoes without and the potential benefits don’t typically justify this downside, let alone the additional cost and weight. Sandal wearers can look forward to flawless breathability and easy cleaning. In some conditions the foot can be allowed to get too dry and the skin can start to crack, though this is easy to manage through the application of moisturising lotions and the wearing of socks.