The great Australian bushwalking furphy.....or is it?

[Lamont]

The dinki di, great Australian bushwalking furphy: you must wear boots whilst bushwalking because they give you ankle support.
Just just typing aloud......

[wildwanderer]

As told by outdoor stores every where hoping to get the unknowing into a sparkly pair of $400 scarpas

Having said that I've recently been using boots for longer trips with shallow creek crossings and morning wet grass. I find the boots stay dry where as shoes end up wet. Didn't pay $400 for them though..

[gayet]

Surely by relying on boots to provide ankle 'support', all you do is end up with weak, sloppy ankles when you take the boots off!!

[Kickinghorse]

Roger C swears by KT 26’s a man with that much walking experience can’t be wrong. They are still out there and good.
Phil

[Lamont]

"The word furphy is a uniquely Australian idiom,..... that something is a false report or a rumour."

[Kickinghorse]

I think we got it Lamont. A great tasting ale to boot!

[Lamont]

to boot!

I like that.

[Zapruda]

Someone posted this on reddit a few weeks back and I loved it! Change a few brand names and it could apply to bushwalkers here quite easily

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hike in Sweden, and I kind of judge the Swedish "hiking uniform". It's not so much because the gear is not quality made, although I do not use it, it's because its users always act like if you don't use this gear you WILL die and you MUST have this gear to hike. These include:

• ⁠$400 Lundhags shell boots (without which your feet WILL fall off)
• ⁠fjällräven waxed hiking pants (anything else will get shredded to bits in 12 hours)
• ⁠Hilleberg tunnel tent (no other tent is suitable for the rugged conditions only found in Sweden)
• ⁠Any backpack under 80L is not suitable for multiple day trips, better if it is 100L (and fjällräven)
• ⁠The $60 blue fjällräven backpack cover (scientifically more waterproof than the $10 decathlon one)
• ⁠wooden walking stick (rather than "unreliable" carbon which will snap)
• ⁠metal water bottle
• ⁠bonus points for a separate map bag

After all of these completely reasonable gear decisions, remember, if you own a water filter you are simply an irrational worry wart.

[Zapruda]

Roger C swears by KT 26’s a man with that much walking experience can’t be wrong. They are still out there and good.
Phil

Quite a few of us still wear them. Can’t complain for $40

[ribuck]

Yep. I did the Larapinta Trail in KT26s.

[iGBH]

Some people need boots to provide ankle support. Not everyone does. Likely those who use trail shoes have developed stronger ankles to not need the same level of support.
I know if i wear lighter shoes, I have a habit of rolling an ankle. This doesn't happen if i wear boots. Could i get better shoes, or strengthen my ankles? - possibly. But boots work for me and have for many years.

[peregrinator]

Roger C swears by KT 26’s a man with that much walking experience can’t be wrong. They are still out there and good.
Phil

Quite a few of us still wear them. Can’t complain for $40

What is their average life expectancy for bushwalking?

[Mark F]

Surely by relying on boots to provide ankle 'support', all you do is end up with weak, sloppy ankles when you take the boots off!!

Agree totally! .. and often blisters due to constantly wet and hot feet. I have never owned a pair of boots that didn't give me blisters but walked happily in my teens and twenties in volleys and now in good trail shoes blister free.

[FatCanyoner]

As someone who has never owned hiking boots, I totally agree. I did walk in old army boots originally -- because that's what I owned -- but then spent many years in Volleys. For walking on tracks, train running shoes are generally much better. For off-track walking, where scrambling is likely, approach shoes are exceptional. Wonderful grip, fast drying, and really hard wearing.

Perhaps it's that I primarily walk in the greater Blue Mountains, but none of the most serious off-track walkers I know use boots. When I see someone in fancy hiking boots, it actually makes me nervous about their experience. To me, hiking boots usually suggest a person walks on tracks and has limited off-track experience.

I don't think I've sprained an ankle in more than a decade, despite huge amounts of challenging off-track terrain over that time. What saves your ankles is knowing how to fall when they twist, rather than hoping footwear might save you. I've seen plenty of people in boots injure their ankles over that same time period. I always tell people that if you feel a bad twist happening, fall to the ground. It's the desperate attempt to stay upright that puts huge strain on the ankle and causes more serious injury. My technique leads to a minor twinge that quickly rectifies itself.

[Zapruda]

Roger C swears by KT 26’s a man with that much walking experience can’t be wrong. They are still out there and good.
Phil

Quite a few of us still wear them. Can’t complain for $40

What their average life expectancy for bushwalking?

For me, about the same as trail runners. 500km off track. Just grabbed a new pair recently.

[JohnnoMcJohnno]

[quote="FatCanyoner"] hiking boots usually suggest a person walks on tracks and has limited off-track experience.

Disagree. That's as big a furphy as the OP's conjecture.

I prefer boots for any long walk on or off track. With shoes I always seem to end up with blackened toenails. It has never happened to me with boots. I think it's because the additional ankle support stops your foot sliding forward as much. I have also often rolled an ankle wearing shoes, not enough to sprain it but enough to be disconcerted. Happens to me with boots too but no-where near as often.

Also, the advice on falling rather than putting stress on your ankle? Not when you get to my age! Just this weekend I helped a youngish lady out who slipped, fell, put her hand out and broke her wrist. We walked her out slowly but after that it was an ambulance job. Not sure what's worse, broken wrist or sprained ankle. I don't remember what footwear she was wearing and she was in too much pain for questioning about her experience.

[commando]

When I see someone in fancy hiking boots, it actually makes me nervous about their experience. To me, hiking boots usually suggest a person walks on tracks and has limited off-track experience.

An interesting observation, but flawed logic.
I use both and it depends where i am going, they both have strengths and weaknesses, and have always used boots but was enjoying the Hike and Bike
shoes but after around 100 kms they on the way out marked with red arrow. Going to the New Zealand alps there is only one choice and its boots.
my feet feel a lot more twisted after using trail runners but i enjoy their lightness on easy walks. Boots and trail runners last me about a year
sometimes a lot less. Replacements on top as there was some good reports.

[wildwanderer]

Yeah I tend to agree. I've seen regular off track walkers in both trail shoes and boots. Their boots are usually in far from pristine condition though.

I wear trail shoes for most trips but places I'm going to encounter mud, lots of shallow creek crossings or snow melt I'm wearing boots more and more. With gaiters and boots you can usually get over many creeks/marshland without getting your socks wet.

I bought the $120 decathlon boots. They have been great and ..jaw drop.. still waterproof. I did a review on them a while back..viewtopic.php?f=63&t=28850

[beardless]

Boots have their place. I took relatively lightweight midcut leather boots for longer multi-day walks and the main advantages over sneakers would be:
1. Keeps feet drier for longer if there is mud and creek crossings.
2. Protects ankles from getting grazed in from rocks and vegetation. (I don't consider them to be any better or necessary for ankle support)
3. They seem to work better with gaiters with more overlap.
4. They often have a more rigid sole which protects the foot when stepping on sharp rocks which is useful when carrying a heavy pack.

But for shorter walks or walks with no water crossings or scree I much prefer lightweight shoes. Dunlop Volleys are my current choice but I might try some KT26s.

[Dexter]

I just checked out some KT26's today. A serious bargain if they work for you, but too wide and flat for my feet. I have been wearing Salomon XA Pro 3D GTX's for years now, and the last pair I bought on Amazon (non GTX) felt terrible in comparison and had to send them back. I'm still not sure if they have changed the design in the version 8, or if they make them completely different without the goretex. But they slipped at the back and just felt wrong.

I've actually just bought some Brooks Ghost 13's. Light weight cross trainers but have an aggressive tread on them. I'm off walking this weekend but I think I'll give these a bit of break in time before I give them a proper go. I just think goretex in shoes is a bit of a marketing ploy. They are heavier and hotter, and as mentioned a fair bit on here... Don't dry if they do get wet.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[beardless]

I just think goretex in shoes is a bit of a marketing ploy. They are heavier and hotter, and as mentioned a fair bit on here... Don't dry if they do get wet.

Totally agree. Gortex and equivalents retain sweat so you just get wet feet from the inside. So you are worse off in warmer, drier environments (where I walk most of the time).

And the shops have hardly any range of waking shoes or boots without gortex.

[Moondog55]

Dexter where are you finding the KTs?
I tried K-Mart and they had none.
I guess it depends what you are used to but I prefer the comfort of a properly fitting, broken in boot to LW runners. When you wear plastic double boots for skiing almost everything else feels like house slippers anyway, even my Montagnas are a kilo lighter than my telemark boots. Speaking as somebody who has just broken his little toes for the second time this year I prefer the protection offered by a decent boot if I can't go barefooted

[Lamont]

So are you after some MD?

[Moondog55]

So are you after some MD?

I used to wear them all the time. They stopped making the size I normally wear a while back or so it seemed or they changed the last slightly.
my feet get bigger during summer when I go bare footed a lot, although I'm nor supposed to go unshod [ after the hip replacement] I really prefer to go barefooted when I can

[Penguin]

It is re raising from an old thread but is there any robust evidence that boots actually protect you from damage to the ligaments in your ankles? Certainly protect your ankles against grazes but what about actual ankle support. Lots of anecdotes out there but I have not seen any solid evidence. Last lit surgery I did was about six or seven years ago, which was massively inconclusive.

I did the lit surgery as I was told by one of the hiking companies that I had to wear boots on the hike. I asked why. I was told to support my ankles. When I asked the role of boots in this we got down to the real reason, it was in their insurance policy.

I have have had dodgy knees most fo my life and so am not the typical bushwalker. Having tried a range of boots, track shoes and I finally settled on five fingers for 95% on on and off track work. Otherwise non Gorterx light and flexible track shoes (inov's8).

This debate always seems to boil down to teams taking sides and battling it out. my feeling is now more "what ever gets you through the night". I do worry about the advice given in hiking shops - seen way to many feet in poor condition on the OLT for no good reason that a $$$$sale.

[matagi]

It is re raising from an old thread but is there any robust evidence that boots actually protect you from damage to the ligaments in your ankles? Certainly protect your ankles against grazes but what about actual ankle support. Lots of anecdotes out there but I have not seen any solid evidence. Last lit surgery I did was about six or seven years ago, which was massively inconclusive.

I just did a quick literature search and the results regarding ankle support are still inconclusive. There does not appear to be a lot of recent research on the subject.

Some of the logic at work in this thread makes me shake my head in disbelief.

My take on the subject - wear what works for you in the conditions you are likely to encounter, whether that is bare feet or knee high mountaineering boots.

My walking footwear ranges from Brooks Adrenaline runners through to La Sportiva boots. The latter are brand new (replacing a pair of Scarpas) so anyone who equates newness of gear with lack of experience, would no doubt recoil in horror if they met me on the trail.

[Neo]

KTs are found in BigW. Have seen them in classic or black.
Unfortunately they and volleys are too narrow at the ball of the foot for me.

[Moondog55]

Everywhere has sold out of the size 13s and even the size 12s. I think the larger sizes were the very first to sell out. Mind you a Kt size 13 is a half size too large and the 12 was a half size too small.
Lucky for me my boots are still OK, just; as long as the glue holding the sole on stays stuck.

[Ms_Mudd]

I just checked out some KT26's today. A serious bargain if they work for you, but too wide and flat for my feet.

But sound perfect for mine!
I have worn a hole in the outer of my current pair of Altra Lone Peaks (1000km on them) and was looking to replace,still functional but imagine they will tear open at some point soon. I do have a pair of Altra Timp 2.0's which I love, but they are my dedicated trail running shoe and I don't want to clock walking km's up on them. I need wide, I need flat. KT26's may just be the go- for $40, they are a fraction of the cost of replacing my Lone Peaks.
The big question is now, khaki or original? ha ha

[CraigVIC]

The Kts have a lot going for them including good grip but don't seem all that durable.

Approx 3 months walking...