Bushwalking with running shoes

[Son of a Beach]

for you Tassie people who use boots in extended wet conditions, how do you go with them filling up with water and not being able to drain.

It's a good point Darren. Of course if the boots fill with water, they drain very slowly indeed, and stay saturated until they are removed, emptied and dried. However, I've found that a good combination of boots and gaiters don't often get full of water. They'll usually get wet, but very rarely saturated (and yes, I do walk through mud and creeks). If the creek is wide or deep enough (or I cross slowly enough), then of course they'll fill with water.

A quick crossing of a creek in boots and gaiters usually leaves me with dry feet - even if the water is higher than the tops of the boots.

Sneakers (runners/sand-shoes) will get saturated and/or fill with water much more easily and quickly than boots. However, they also drain and dry quicker.

So it really depends on wether or not you're likely to be walking through water deeper than the tops of your gaiters (or deeper than the tops of your boots for a considerable width).

[lexharris]

OK A lot has been said here and I read most of it...

I'd nearly finished a long post myself and was just about to submit it but tasadam has saved me the trouble - my feelings (and experience) exactly! Thanks tasadam!

Here's a couple of anecdotes from a trip to SW Cape earlier this year:

1. At Wilson Bight I met another solo walker who'd just returned from SW Cape. He'd walked all the way down from Scotts Peak Dam wearing - wait for it - open TEVA sandals. He wasn't carrying boots at all, he believed sandals were all you really needed. He was on his way back to Melaleuca to pick up supplies before continuing on along the South Coast Track. Well I admire his courage and determination to prove a point, but it seemed to me the sandals were beginning to take their toll - miraculously his feet weren't shredded as you might have expected and the sandals had lasted remarkably well, but he was having problems with chafing and needed adhesive plaster. I gave him all the plaster I was carrying. Wearing my SLs I had no need for plaster even with a 35kg pack.

2. Back at Melaleuca and waiting for a plane, I noticed a dejected lone walker approaching from the south. He was wearing runners but after striking up a conversation I discovered this was not by choice. The runners were his intended camp footwear - dangling from his pack was a pair of new looking Blunnies with enormous smiles (i.e. the sole had come away from the boot, both boots). Turns out he'd bought these boots at a good price and on the recommendation of a mate who worked for the manufacturer. He'd just started out on the South Coast track and this serious gear failure had ended his dream. The poor guy had been planning this for ages and he looked shattered, my heart went out to him.

As already pointed out in this thread, the correct footwear is that which suits the application. I have no problem with people wearing runners, sandals or even bare feet provided the choice is an intelligent and appropriate one. I've walked Prion beach with a heavy pack and bare feet. But my suburban feet would not be tough enough to tackle the Western Arthurs without good boots. Deny King tramped the SW in bare feet but I suspect his feet were a good deal tougher and more calloused than mine. Similarly my sandalled friend above probably had tougher feet than most and got away with it, and he was careful to choose sandals with a good reputation for durability. The smiling Blunnies guy was less fortunate in his choice - a serious gear failure cost him his dream, he was lucky it didn't cost him more. When I go out alone reliability of gear is of the utmost importance, this is not something to scrimp on. Alone in the SW, days from the nearest help, is not a good time for gear failure.

[tasadam]

That's a great photo - I like it.
I look at those boots (about the same as mine but yours are cleaner) and see many stories, many great walks (not too many - they still look new).

It's a good point Darren. Of course if the boots fill with water, they drain very slowly indeed, and stay saturated until they are removed, emptied and dried. However, I've found that a good combination of boots and gaiters don't often get full of water. They'll usually get wet, but very rarely saturated (and yes, I do walk through mud and creeks). If the creek is wide or deep enough (or I cross slowly enough), then of course they'll fill with water.
A quick crossing of a narrow shallow creek in boots and gaiters usually leaves me with dry feet.

My boots don't "usually get wet", I would more say "sometimes get damp", due to my over zealous use of snowseal.
I entirely concur that it is rare for me to end up with wet feet unless it is intended, such as deep long creek crossings without removing boots.
Frenchmans mud, knee deep for extended periods - dry feet.
South Cape Range mud, as deep as a few feet - dry feet.
When they fill with water as described above (deep long crossings), removed, emptied and "aired upside down for a while / overnight" more so than "dried". They don't "dry" as such, mainly due to the water that absorbs in the foam in my orthotics which are very hard to wring out.
But, keeping dry feet for as long as possible is a better option.
Crossing Junction Creek, with a quick run, my feet were still dry even though the water level was somewhat above the tops of the boots. I had gaiters on, and plastic pants (cheap, Rainbird or similar, about $30 - 35) over the top of that. And generally I use a number 64 rubber band around each leg to help keep the plastic pants against the gaiters. Not so in dry weather of course.
Creek crossings such as south coast track - South Cape Rivulet was up to my hips so I crossed naked.
Louisa River, Louisa Creek and Faraway Creek were about knee deep (really just above), and yes you end up with wet feet. They stay wet for the rest of the day or until you remove and empty them, wring your socks out etc if you can be bothered. Or you can remove your boots for the crossings, which is an option. Crossing Red Hill Point Hill Plains (or whatever they're called) after Louisa and Faraway Creek crossings, the wet feet didn't bother me. I had removed and wrung the socks so although the feet were wet, they weren't squelching in the boots as they would have been if I hadn't "emptied" so to speak.
By the way, one idea I had was to lay back and raise your legs, leave them up high and roll your feet around for a while so the water runs out of the boots without removing them.
DON'T DO THIS! The water runs down your leg or inside your plastic pants and you end up with a wet bum / other things...

If I were doing that walk in winter, I would have removed my boots for the creeks as I did at S C Rivulet. Wet feet is one thing. Cold wet feet isn't fun.

[Darren]

Tasadam
Thanks mate thats useful info.Ive found that gaiters form a bit of an air pocket that survives during a quick dunking but its interesting you comments about frenchmans and the like. From what i have seen ( photos only) you can spend quite a bit of the time with your feet under water. On your upside down draining method i raced enduro's for years and still trail ride and alpine stars full of water is quite common, your best getting on your hands and knees doing the same thing, you dont get a wet but.
Thanks
Darren

[tasadam]

... your best getting on your hands and knees doing the same thing, you dont get a wet but.

Good idea, the water would run off the knees. I'll keep it in mind.
Unless I've still got my plastic pants on, of course.

[Son of a Beach]

PS. I crossed the creek pictured below in boots and gaiters, and got no water at all in my boots, and continued on in the snow and mud for the rest of the day with dry (and warm) feet. At the point where I crossed (right where the picture was taken from), there were stepping stones about 25 cm under water, so the boots were well under water with the water level being near the top of the gaiters for a couple of steps.

[MountainMule]

Thanks SOB, for your comments. I shall certainly post responses as I 'acclimatise' to runners.

That creek above, looks COLD!. Methinks I shall stick with my boots

Here's a cautionary tale concerning my full leather boots , Bunyip by make, and although about eight years old, still with plenty of life left in them [ I thought . My last big trip was the OL Track, and me and my mate planned to do it slowly, stay out at least thirteen days and enjoy. My mate wore some horrible make [ Asian ] of cheap boots which he used working around building sites. I wore my beloved Bunyips. Two days into the tramp, and you guessed it, the sole on my left boot parted company with the rest of us.

After my mate had picked himself up from laughing at the failure of these so-called 'tough' boots, we had the sort of dilemma faced by the walker mentioned above. Only thing was, we HAD to fix these boots; I had no backup footwear, nix. And I wasn't turning back, not having flown in from the mainland specially for this.

Short story is, I walked the next TEN days with a mixture of cord and wire keeping my boots together. And you guessed it, the right sole also started to come apart as well.

I was in shock for the first few days, followed by anger that a pair of perfectly well-cared for hardly worn-in full leather top-dollar 'proudly made in Australia' boots had falled apart without so much as a whimper. We got by because we were patient and resourceful. But we didn't enjoy the hassle of stopping every now and then to adjust my cord and wire strappings.

The upshot is this: Are the soles on your boots stitched to the uppers? If they're not, the chances are you'll one day suffer the same problem. In the dim distant past all decent boots had stitched soles. Of course this practice ended with high volume, cost cutting, and alleged 'high tech' glue solutions. I thought I was doing the right thing, buying Australian boots for Australian conditions. Not necessarily so. A pair of well made Italian boots would probably have been more appropriate.

Another upshot: I now have a pair of boots which were immediately repaired with new soles free of charge by Bunyip and to look at them, in pristine condition. But do I trust 'em again?

No-one can tell for sure why they failed, but my theory is that I kept my boots in my [slightly] heated garage when I wasn't using them. Perhaps this dry environment gradually dried out the glue holding the soles. That's my theory, so my boots are now kept outside in a cooler, more humid environment.
But do I trust 'em?

Now where are those runners I bought......

[Son of a Beach]

I once came across a middle aged lady outside the old new Pelion Hut that had the soles on both her boots flapping, and none of her solutions to hold them together were working, and she was somewhat distressed about it wondering how she was going to be able to walk out at all.

In my pack, I had a pair of old sneakers for my camp shoes and I happened to have exactly the same shoe size as the lady who's boots were falling apart. I lent them to her, and she mailed them back to me from Melbourne a few weeks later (along with a thank you gift). It really made her day, I think.

Since then, I always make sure that my camp shoes are decent enough to walk in, just in case my boots ever fall apart (no matter how good your footwear, there is always the potential for them to fall apart one day, and you may have just bought the 'bad apple' of the production run).

[Kainas]

Since then, I always make sure that my camp shoes are decent enough to walk in, just in case my boots ever fall apart (no matter how good your footwear, there is always the potential for them to fall apart one day, and you may have just bought the 'bad apple' of the production run).

The comments in this forum definetly make this seem like some good advice.

[lexharris]

I look at those boots (about the same as mine but yours are cleaner) and see many stories, many great walks (not too many - they still look new).

Yep, they are new. I bought the last pair in 1994 and only just retired them. They never let me down (although they were resoled once after the tread had worn out) and they still had more life in them, the only reason for retiring them was that my toes were starting to touch the end and I was losing toenails on long walks. Never happened in the earlier years, I guess my feet must have changed over the years. The new ones are one size bigger.
Lex.
PS. It's not my intention to promote any particular brand, this is just my personal experience. Other brands may give equally good service.

[Kainas]

the only reason for retiring them was that my toes were starting to touch the end and I was losing toenails on long walks. Never happened in the earlier years, I guess my feet must have changed over the years. The new ones are one size bigger.

I have heard it said (though can offer no reference) that the arches of the feet tend to flatten as you get older, making your feet longer.

[lexharris]

I have heard it said (though can offer no reference) that the arches of the feet tend to flatten as you get older, making your feet longer.

I think you could be right Kainas. These boots never gave me any trouble for the first 10 years or so, then I started getting bruising of one toenail and this progressed finally to 3 toenails before I decided to go up a size. It only happened with a heavy pack, and then only after about the second day into a long walk. It does seem like arches might flattening under load (and with age). Maybe I need to look into arch supports.

[sthughes]

Wow - what a debate - can't believe I missed it! Just spent like 45minutes catching up!

Well it's full leather boots all the way for me too! I have tried running shoes on the "upper" Dove Lake circuit (when the face track was open) and also up Mt Strzelecki (on my 5th time). The Dove lake walk was a pain - literally. Sore feet, rolled ankles (numerous times), shoes half destroyed. Mt. Strzelecki was better but still had sore feet. Both were in very dry conditions so wet feet weren't an issue. Both are pretty well formed and clear tracks, albeit fairly rugged. Oh and both were with minimal gear carried.

- I think if your feet are sore at the end of the day in boots - perhaps they don't fit properly?
- Wearing boots I've only had a blister once (when wearing boots with Yowies).
- I don't think it's fair to compare sports like footy, wrestling, basketball etc. with bushwalking. The surfaces are a tad different and I think a court/field is a lot more "predictable". Even if you do sprain an ankle I think you will make it the 20m to the side line - bit harder to make it 20km to the car over mountains and through bog.
- I agree boots are only good if laced up correctly - like I think Tasadam said - lace them up, walk a bit, tighten them up.
- One of those 'studies' listed compared boots with 'modified' basketball boots and showed little difference. I think maybe because basketball shoes unlike runners generally do offer ankle support in the first place.
- I didn't realise the AIS had a bushwalking team for Professor Kieran Fallon to have so much experience with comparing boots and runners.

The Australian Army now use runners for recruits and soldiers to go on training runs, this was done to reduce foot, ankle and leg injuries.

And so they should - after all running would be best done in running shoes I should think (as would bushwalking in bushwalking boots?). Be interesting to see if they used them on their last combat training 'mission' in the bush in Tassie.

[tas-man]

Looking through some of the Launceston Walking Clubs recently digitised old 16mm movies that we are converting into DVD's, I was reminded of the many threads about volleys/sandshoes v. boots discussions. There was evidence that this debate has been going on a l__o__n__g time as in many of the 1960/70's movies there was a wide range of footwear on the trips. I have attached two samples from a trip from Melaleuca to Macquarie Harbour in the late 1960's.

Volleys & Adidas.png

Boots & sandshoes.png

[Tony]

Hi sthughes,

Thankyou for your views and your experiences it is what this forum is all about.

First I will say again that I have not said that anyone must wear shoes I have not even implied that shoes must be worn and I have never written that shoes must be worn in tassi or anywhere else, which is different from what the boot proponents are saying. I have only written about my experiences and put some information about shoes vs boots that I have come across. You and anyone else are welcome to wear what ever you want to wear.

I didn't realise the AIS had a bushwalking team for Professor Kieran Fallon to have so much experience with comparing boots and runners.

Do you know what experience Professor Kieran Fallon has, you might be surprised. The podiatrist that spoke at the club meeting has many years of experience doing many different outdoor activities all over the world including many walks in Tassi in shoes and not just the OT. BTW the next time that I do the OT I am planning to walk it in shoes.

Should I believe you with your anecdotal evidence rather than the advice from Professor Fallon and the Podiatrist with many years of bushwalking experience and backed up with some research. Where is your evidence.

I don't think it's fair to compare sports like footy, wrestling, basketball etc. with bushwalking. The surfaces are a tad different and I think a court/field is a lot more "predictable". Even if you do sprain an ankle I think you will make it the 20m to the side line - bit harder to make it 20km to the car over mountains and through bog.
- I agree boots are only good if laced up correctly - like I think Tasadam said - lace them up, walk a bit, tighten them up.
- One of those 'studies' listed compared boots with 'modified' basketball boots and showed little difference. I think maybe because basketball shoes unlike runners generally do offer ankle support in the first place.

I disagree with you that the stresses on an ankle when bushwalking is that much different that doing sport, if anything sports like football, basketball put more stress on ankles. Many of the shoe vs boots research papers mentioned the Israeli army recruit training article, you did not.

Tony

[Son of a Beach]

I disagree with you that the stresses on an ankle when bushwalking is that much different that doing sport, if anything sports like football, basketball put more stress on ankles.

I'm trying to keep out of this debate lately, but I just wanted to clarify that I think sthughes was not referring to how much stress the sport puts on the ankle through the movement of the body, but rather I think he was referring to the the stress on the ankles due to the surface on which the foot lands. Ie, rough and irregular when bushwalking, but relatively smooth and flat in most court or field sports. The papers you quoted earlier showed that unexpected landing on irregular surfaces or angles is more likely to cause ankle injury.

(Note that I'm not saying anything about whether boots or shoes would protect ankles better or not, here)

[rcaffin]

Hi All,
As a Surveyor for FT for 36 years prior to retirement, I can say that as part of their OH&S requirements the wearing of high ankle leather boots was mandatory as it is significantly safer than any alternative.

Which may be as logical as claiming that you must wear an $800, 800 gram GORE-TEX jacket or you will die.
Perhaps whoever wrote this into the OH&S rules believed it. Bureaucrats are like that.

Cheers

[rcaffin]

Here goes my two bobs worth again .
1. Why do the Armed Services issue Boots when they could save bucket loads issuing Runners

Have you ever known a bureaucrat (in DoD head office) actually decide to change something?
Anyhow, soldiers fight wars; bushwalkers go bushwalking.

2. Why do all serious European Alpine Walkers wear Boots

They don't. Joggers are very popular over there. (Evidence: observations from quite a few multi-month walking trips in Europe.)

3. How do you keep a runner on your foot when you have just dipped it in knee deep sucking bog

Usually, by wearing gaiters and doing up the laces. No problem.

4.Try six or seven Hours in wet snow with runners (bad enough with boots)

Been there, done that - with snowshoes, mind you. Good fun.

5. How many hours do you really spend on strengthening your ankles

Oh, about 3 months of full-time walking per year. Reckon that might do?

6. I love a good debate and Boots Full Leather are the only way to go here in Tassie

Well, there's nothing like religious fervour, although whether it contributes to a DEBATE is another matter.


The people we (S&R) rescue are usually novices with lots of heavyweight gear, usually of the wrong sort.

cheers

[rcaffin]

Interestingly there is a similar debate for babies who are learning to walk - shoe shops tend to push the more rigid shoes, some podiatrists say that flexible, light footwear is better.

I wonder where the early humans of, say, 2000 years ago, bought their 'rigid baby shoes' from?
I wonder where all the African marathon runners (who often win at the Olympics) get their 'rigid shoes' from?
For that matter, I wonder why the shoe shops like to push the 'rigid shoes' which they sell at great cost, instead of letting babies go barefoot and have their feet grow naturally?

cheers

[rcaffin]

I have heard it said (though can offer no reference) that the arches of the feet tend to flatten as you get older, making your feet longer.

Not true if you are reasonably fit.
What does happen is that your feet continue to grow all your life. The growth rate may slow down, or it may not.
My feet have grown at least a full USA/UK size over the last few years. My 15 year old 3-pin ski boots are now 3 Euro sizes too small for me. I had to buy new ski gear (oh the cost!).

Cheers

[lexharris]

I have heard it said (though can offer no reference) that the arches of the feet tend to flatten as you get older, making your feet longer.

Not true if you are reasonably fit.
What does happen is that your feet continue to grow all your life. The growth rate may slow down, or it may not.
My feet have grown at least a full USA/UK size over the last few years. My 15 year old 3-pin ski boots are now 3 Euro sizes too small for me. I had to buy new ski gear (oh the cost!).

Cheers

Do you have any evidence to support that? I'm not questioning your assertion, I'm just interested to know the true reason why my 15 year old boots are now too small when for years they were fine. Do you have any evidence disproving the notion that arches flatten with age, especially when heavily loaded?

[sthughes]

Do you know what experience Professor Kieran Fallon has, you might be surprised. The podiatrist that spoke at the club meeting has many years of experience doing many different outdoor activities all over the world including many walks in Tassi in shoes and not just the OT. BTW the next time that I do the OT I am planning to walk it in shoes.

No idea - unless he's walked on the moon then I won't be surprised, I'm sure he's a great guy with lots of experience etc. I'm just pointing out that simply being a proffessor and the head honcho of whatever doesn't automatically make you an expert on footwear to wear in Tassie.

Where is your evidence.

Well I didn't really make any wild asertions I felt needed it. All the evidence I need is at the end of my legs.

I disagree with you that the stresses on an ankle when bushwalking is that much different that doing sport, if anything sports like football, basketball put more stress on ankles. Many of the shoe vs boots research papers mentioned the Israeli army recruit training article, you did not.

Like Nik said - I meant the ground surface not the actual stresses. The force is probably greater - but the ground is even and the consequences insignificant compared to those in extremeley remote areas.

[Nuts]

I was about to make some points then I saw that they have just been made..

Boots also seem to result in more time lookin' around, less at your feet...

Iv'e also noticed using walking poles for several (walking) months that you can actually kinda ski/skate across a lot of (even) rocky ground in a pair of boots that Have a solid protective sole and Ankle Protection from rocks etc.

[Penguin]

I did actually walk about 8km the other day in an old pair of sneakers and wound up with very sore soles of the feet but that also may have been because of the thin nylon socks I was wearing.

Just thinking about it, I think my biggest issue with walking in sneakers is the support under the foot - most boots are a lot more rigid so allow the foot to twist less on rough ground. Is this as important or more important than ankle support?

DA has the point that I have been investigating with a couple of local podiatrists. One is an average Joe, the other an ex Olympian. Either being an exolympian, nor an average Joe, gives them more or less knowledge than other podiatrists.

Their view was that boots gave no more ankle support than shoes, but protect the ankles against buffeting and abrasions.

The main difference they felt was the rolling support that boots give for long distance walking on rough ground. This results in less fatigue on the soles of the feet. A number of boot makers market their product on the basis of soles designed for a better roling motion. Not unsurprisingly, there was a recommendation for orthotics to help with flat feet etc

One of the podiatrists has run the OT during the annual race, she worn shoes with very stiff orthotics for the event.

The athlete has hamstring problems and so has trouble with the limited range of movement of a boot. She prefers to wear the shoes which go half way up the ankle. In muddy environments she likes boots because she likes dry feet - that is not the podiatrist talking just a walker that likes dry feet.

I am have asked them to get me any further information. My straw poll found two podiatrists who did not feel that either argument, shoes vs boots, is a clear winner.

Recently I have done day walks on racks with shoes and overnighters with boots. With a pack and on rough ground my feet get sore and have a tired feeling if I wear shoes.

More experimenting means more walking which is great!!

[Nuts]

Again busy writing when someone else has made the point...

I and a few others have pointed out that a big part of the choice for boots comes from the Protection afforded for the ankles and soles in rough rocky country and without constantly being concerned with foot placement. This is aside from any debate on ankle support/tracking etc.

Rough and Rocky- 90% of Tassie ?

[flyfisher]

Just my 2 bobs worth.-Ihave spent a LOT of time fishing in the western lakes (more than 30 years)and have used a bit of a mixture over the years. One trip I distinctly recall was riding into Theresa lagoon 9PRE 1984) wearing a pair of MM's and walking about a k or 2 looking for a campsite and getting 2 or 3 blisters just from that. On other trips I often rode in thigh waders and carried kt26's in my day pack which was a great combination and the light footwear was good with a day pack.However W lakes is generally not that wet underfoot and the waders were there for marshy ground and creek crossings. Probably not carrying much weight helped my feet at that time.
On a trip I made to Frenchmans Cap I wore a pair of Vasque Sundowner boots with Goretex and also gaiters.I had only had these boots for 3 days before the trip and they did give me sore heels but no blisters. Best of all I had dry feet for the whole trip although the mud was calf deep (in March)
My next pair were Aku Tiaga's GT which have been worn in all conditions over the last 6 years. No sore feet -no blisters,except for skin off heels caused by snow shoe straps. These boots are not full leather and not real heavy but I find when walking in Tassie rocks and scree with a pack on that feet jammed betweenrocks dont hurt anywhere near as much as with light footwear. Also the extra thickness under foot stops the soles of the feet getting bruised and sore.
I have a brand new pair of Raichle MT Trail GTX all leather boots so I will be able to give a report on these in a month or two.
Make of this ramble what you will but I have worn both and will do so again depending where I am going and what I am carrying but I favour strong boots when I have a heavy pack on.

Flyfisher

[Penguin]

Hi all

I have I said I have been experimenting with runners/shoes on formed track. I was doing a training walk up from Ferndene today and wearing a set of HiTec bushwalking shoes. I rolled my ankle on a piece of wood on the track. This is the first time I have done this, and am sporting a rather attractive black/purple bruise on the lateral side of my ankle. Who knows if I would have achieved quite the same angle of rotation with boots on?

N=1 is the worst argument in scientific terms, except the atom bombs do kill people on the basis of N=2.

Hopefully with some timely meds and and bit of rehab, I will no be too disadvantaged in my preparation for PB in Feb.

I am still not keen to bang around of rough tracks/no tracks for seven days, with a pack on, and not in boots. Prejudice? Probably. But I do sleep week at night.

Cheers to all

[DaveNoble]

Some comments -

I have recently returned from some hikes in Europe (Italian Dolomites and Swiss Alps) - and the large majority of walkers that stay in the mountain huts (where you are obliged to take of your shoes and boots and put them in a rack as you enter) do wear boots. Perhaps 90%. I didn't wear boots - but did wear walking shoes, not running shoes. But there were plenty of walkers in running shoes and walking shoes as well as boot wearers.

But - for almost all my Tasmanian and New Zealand walking (as well as the Blue Mts near where I live) - I have worn Dunlop Volleys - which I would not class as running shoes - but they are lightweight. For the most part I have had no problems with wearing volleys. On my first Tasmanian trip (23 days in the SW) - I was the only one out of the four in the party to wear volleys (and I had an extra pair in one of the air drops part way through the trip - but as it turned out I didn't really need them) - and the other members of the party criticised me for wearing them - but it is interesting to note that each of the other three walkers in the party wore only volleys on later trips to Tasmania. On many trips - some other members of the party have worn boots - and have seemed to have had no problems with them - so I think it may be a case of what you are familiar with.

Dave

[roysta]

I've only just joined this forum, so I've spent the afternoon going through this entire thread with interest because it is one dear to my heart.
About 5 years ago I developed a serious issue with my right foot.
Up to that point I was wearing hard boots.
I decided to give soft off road runners a go just to see how they were. I'm not talking cheap stuff here either, $200 worth of New Balance.
They went so well, on and off track with pack weights between 11 and 15kgs that I wore them out.
I'm now on my third pair (Adidas) with no feet dramas.
My simple point is that it really is each to their own.
I do own a pair of low cut Scarpa Egos (now there's a great name) now worn in and ready for several weeks in the tropical Andes.
I'm going to take the runners too, but not sure about them on a couple of glaciers.
Thanks to all of you for an entertaining afternoon.

[Son of a Beach]

3 pairs of expensive shoes in 5 years is rather a lot (compared to the 10 years of hard walking I get out of my bushwalking footwear), but if it's necessary for your feet to be able to keep walking, then it's definitely worth it!