Heavy backpacking boots vs. light hiking shoes?

I have not worn my boots (Scarpa Delta.. Similar to Sundowners) hiking in years.
Granted, I keep my pack weight to around 35 lbs on backpacking trips and much less for day hikes,
but I much prefer lighter weight to extra support. I trail run a lot of rugged
miles every week and I typically wear the same shoes hiking as when running.
I think it comes down to personal preference.
 
I used to hike in everything from Converse combat boots to softsoled mocs. Right now my current shoes are Asolo Echos, which are heavy mid-height hikers built to take a nuke, North Face Rucky Chuckies, which are reinforced trail hikers with a carbon insert, and minnetonka softsoles. It depends on the terrain, if I'm hiking in boulder/rock fields I wear the asolos if I feel like plowing and I'm carrying alot of weight, so I don't shred my light shoes and mocs. If I'm moving fast and light I'll wear the mocs, there's alot more friction that a flat sole provides so it's instant purchase, plus they're 100 times more comfortable. If I'm on an established trail with a pack, I wear the Rucky Chuckies.
 
my boots have been slowly trending lighter, but so has my load

I still have several pairs of my heavier boots and if the need ever arises where I need to carry a heavier load, I'd probably pull a pair out of retirement

lighter pack, lighter shoes makes the miles go by quicker :)
 
I wear Merrill light hikers. They feel like thick tennis shoes on my feet with ankle support. Good stuff.
 
After all this talk of lightening the load, I think I may take the opportunity to try out semi-ultra light on one of the weekend hikes this spring. I have duplicates of most of my gear: I usually buy the classic durable items when I need something (MSR Shaker Stove, 2qt. Stowaway pot, full size Thermarest, 3-man tent, etc.) then spring for the ultralight version after about a year of hauling it around (MSR Pocket Rocket, Single serving cup, Thermarest Prolite, Make somebody else carry the 3-man tent :D). I guess the hiking shoes are probably the next step for me after so many miles with the boots.

I am planning a hike for the beginning of April (I wanted to go sooner, but we are still supposed to get more snow here in Michigan and most of the people I hike with are not set up for that), but since my brother just got done with chemo we are canoeing into our site where the rest of the party will have to hike 6 miles in :thumbup:. I am going to be bringing all the goodies, so some ultralight will have to wait until next time...
 
I don't think I know of anyone who has lightened their load and thought this sucks and gone back to a heavy pack :D
 
mtwarden said:
I don't think I know of anyone who has lightened their load and thought this sucks and gone back to a heavy pack :D
Click to expand...

I hear you.

I think you should always be prepared but in a lot of ways some of the skills we talk about here like fire making, proper shelter, wild food, cooking over a fire can help you go lighter.
 
^ exactly- I'd never advocate anyone going into the backcountry ill prepared, but there is usually plenty of room to par down the weight- certainly was in my case anyways
 
I need the ankle support, so boots. Even on day hikes with a minimal pack. I've been nursing a sprained ankle for a few weeks now thanks to deciding to hit a trail with low-top trail shoes, and tripping over a root while jogging down a trail. Walking a few miles out when you can barely put weight on one foot is fun.
 
I have a pair of La Sportiva M-Hike boots (no longered in production) that are so comfortable I actually prefer them over trail shoes even on light day hikes. The only down side is that they can get hot in the summer. Those boots have convinced me that the quality and fit of footwear is much more important to me than being light weight and super flexible. They give me the comfort of a slipper with the support of a backpacking boot. That being said, in the sumer I often hike in Chako sandals or soft Sodhopper moccasins.
 
On offtrack walks I wear these:
http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/sneakers/all/images/81416_600.jpg

They have very thin soles with a ripple tread pattern than seems to grip to anything. Even slick moss covered rocks. You can feel the ground through them which I find also prevents falling in tricky creek walks.
Not the best choice for firetrail/ road bashes. Your feet end up a little tender. But horses for courses. I use thicker soled shoes if I know it's going to be endless km of hard ground.

I've fractured an ankle in boots. Now that my ankles are stronger, I find I get far less fatigued in light shoes. You know that feeling at the end of the day when your hip flexors are so tired they don't want to lift your toes? You end up tripping on rocks.
That happens less with light footwear.

50lb? I don't want this to turn into a competition, but what are you carrying? I've got an upcoming walk and my pack with 7 days food and 6L water only comes to 44lb.
 
Up until my hips blew out I have never been one to minimize weight. Being able to ruck 150 pounds long distances over rough terrain at a good pace is an accomplishment, and builds shoulder and back muscles like crazy. My usual three day camping load is about 80 pounds on a Mountainsmith Maverick, and unless I go 'ultralight', AKA spend unneccessary money on products made out of crappier (and less) material to make them "light", which I have no plans on doing, the other alternative is going primitive, Nessmuk style. I'm working on that kit as we speak.
 
mdauben said:
In theory, I agree, in practice I would not recommend this approach.

Now, I'm not saying you should not strive to increase the strength of you muscles, tendons, and ligaments, but not during a backpacking trip. This is something you should do at home or the gym, where overstressing something is not a trip-killer or going to leave you with a sprained ankle 20 miles from the trail head.
Click to expand...

I didn't advocate jumping into this concept on a 100 mile trip with a 50 pound pack - I advocated strengthening your legs so you are capable of doing that 100 mile trip without giant boots at some point. I even stated that, for abnormally heavy loads where I'm not confident in my leg strength, I still wear traditional hiking boots.


If you build up to it, though, with day hikes and overnighters, you can cover a lot of mileage without ankle support, and be safer for it. I know people who run hundred mile ultra-marathons in bare feet, and are far less injury prone than ultra runners who have the latest and greatest shoes. It's all about building the strength up gradually - and at the end of the day, the only way you'll ever build up that strength is to leave the boots at home.
 
PayetteRucker said:
Up until my hips blew out I have never been one to minimize weight. Being able to ruck 150 pounds long distances over rough terrain at a good pace is an accomplishment, and builds shoulder and back muscles like crazy. My usual three day camping load is about 80 pounds on a Mountainsmith Maverick, and unless I go 'ultralight', AKA spend unneccessary money on products made out of crappier (and less) material to make them "light", which I have no plans on doing, the other alternative is going primitive, Nessmuk style. I'm working on that kit as we speak.
Click to expand...

150lb!? That sounds awful, but my hat goes off to you. Very impressive.
 
MustardMan said:
I am a big fan of minimizing the support I get from my footwear - the more you hike without arch and ankle support, the stronger the muscles, tendons, and ligaments in your legs and feet become, and the less injury prone you are.
Click to expand...
:thumbup:

Go with less on your feet. That is my vote. If you are worried about the weight of your load, do everything to reduce the weight of the load.

Exercise to prepare your legs for more advanced pack trips.
 
I used to get paid to backpack (wilderness ranger USFS) :) and carrying heavy loads was the norm- we had to pack a single buck saw, pulaski, wedges, radio, file- amongst numerous other heavy items, along with "normal" backpacking items-including food and water. We worked 10 day hitches (w/ four days off) and often covered over 200+ miles in a hitch (clearing trails often consumed a lot of time).

I was in my 20's and undoubtedly in the best shape of my life. That was a long time ago, but I still enjoy getting into the backcountry and do so on a regular basis. I've fully embraced the concept of traveling light. Covering more miles, more easily, with less wear and tear; was not a overly hard choice to make for me (or my wife) :)
 
mtwarden said:
I used to get paid to backpack (wilderness ranger USFS) :) and carrying heavy loads was the norm- we had to pack a single buck saw, pulaski, wedges, radio, file- amongst numerous other heavy items, along with "normal" backpacking items-including food and water. We worked 10 day hitches (w/ four days off) and often covered over 200+ miles in a hitch (clearing trails often consumed a lot of time).

I was in my 20's and undoubtedly in the best shape of my life. That was a long time ago, but I still enjoy getting into the backcountry and do so on a regular basis. I've fully embraced the concept of traveling light. Covering more miles, more easily, with less wear and tear; was not a overly hard choice to make for me (or my wife) :)
Click to expand...

How would an ex-military 20-something year old in good physical condition get a job like that?
 
start here:

http://www.fs.fed.us/fsjobs/

I'll be honest it doesn't hurt to know someone, if you have a local USFS station- I'd certainly introduce myself around.

Generally you start on a trail crew, then move up to a trail crew boss, then wilderness ranger- not always, but usually.

Having been in the military is a big bonus (literally) as any applications that score out similar, the veteran gets the nod.

These are usually seasonal positions (depending on locale ~ May - Oct, but could vary), but sometimes can be worked into full time positions.

I didn't make much $ during that time period (didn't get much of a chance to spend a heck of a lot either :D), but wouldn't trade it for anything
 
beef said:
150lb!? That sounds awful, but my hat goes off to you. Very impressive.
Click to expand...

yeah those damned alice packs get heavy FAST. Thanks, Air Force... Seriously though my BoB built on an Eberlestock pack weighs 140-something, hard to keep the pack balanced on the scale. I've rucked almost 200 before and still managed to hold a 4 mile-per-hour pace but it certainly wasn't fun.
 
Good timing on this thread. I'm shopping around for a pair of shoes/boots too. I've looked at Vasque (but apparently their quality has declined) and Danner. Man... quite an expense. Still think I'm gonna have to end up with a pair of heavies and a pair of lighter shoes for trail. What are the thin socks people usually recommend wearing under wool? Poly-somethings. I currently wear heavy work boots by Skechers.

76841EW_GCH.jpg


Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top