Bushwalking with running shoes

[ClockworkLemon]

This has been a very interesting read, and while I'm a long time boot wearer, and will likely continue to wear boots, I have picked up a number of useful bits of information regarding foot care and blister prevention.

One thing that interests me is that, in the discussion over whether boots or running shoes would give better protection against sprained/strained ankles, the emphasis seems to be solely on whether you're more likely to twist your ankle or not. I'd be interested to see if someone has looked into the severity of injuries depending on footwear being worn. To my mind (and I think this may have been touched on in a post or two already), a boot, which supports the ankle and reduces the allowable movement, should reduce the severity of a twisted ankle when you suffer one. Of course, having said that, that's just my gut feeling, and I'm by no means an expert, and it could simply mean that you still suffer the same amount of strain, just in a different location...

[Tony]

Here is some more information regarding the shoe vs boot debate.

Tony

Energy cost of backpacking in heavy boots

Abstract
Previous studies have investigated the oxygen cost (02) of increasing boot weight during unloaded walking or running, and have shown that for each 100 g increase in weight of footwear there is a 0·7-1·0% increase in O2 In reality (except in athletic events) the use of heavy footwear is associated with load carriage, usually backpacking. We therefore investigated the effects of increasing boot weight by 5% of body weight on the 02 of backpacking a load amounting to 35% of the body-weight in five healthy young males who walked at 4·5 km/hour (0% grade) on a motor-driven treadmill. The results indicated a mean increase of 0·96% in 02 whilst backpacking for each 100thinsp;-g increase in boot weight. In contrast the oxygen cost of increasing the backpack load was only 0·15% indicating that it was 6·4 times more expensive to carry weight on the feet as compared to the back. It is concluded that the relation between boot weight and oxygen cost, previously developed for unloaded walking and running, can reasonably be extended to include heavier boots and backpacking.

Knapik JJ, et al. Soldier load carriage: historical, physiological, biomechanical, and medical aspects. Mil Med 2004 Jan;169(1):45-56.

[Son of a Beach]

I don't think anyone's going to argue against the notion that carrying more weight (on any part of your body) requires more energy, and hence more oxygen.

The real debate would be whether it is worth the extra energy. And from what people have posted here, it seems to be something people have different opinions on.

[rcaffin]

Ah well, always good for a campfire arguement.

Me, I wear a very worn and slightly over-sized pair of KT-26s. No tread left on the sole at all.
Liners socks and then Thorlos or Darn Tough Vermonts.
But then, I haven't sprained an ankle or had a blister for ... decades?


Cheers
Roger

[sirius Tas]

Tony,
Having had similar thoughts to wearing runners here in Tassie in the drier type forests and regions I've just came back from quite a longish day trip on our Freycinet Peninsular. My runners were Dunlop KT26's which I've used over the past 20 years for jogging etc...not the same pair of course....so quite light. My intended journey from the main car park to the end of Bryans Beach via tracks was just on 32km return. While the tracks are very dry there are some long sections of stone etc...but mostly the tracks are quartzite sand with large beach sections also.. as basically an all granite geology. Having arrived at Cookes Beach after 2.75 hrs...I must have been day dreaming or something....and passed the point where the track turned off....so thought I'd keep going around the shoreline and maybe pick it up some time later...but of course the track never came within cooee..almost 1.5 km inland. Obviously I could have turned back and re-grouped as it were....but thought what the heck...I'll keep following the shoreline....well after quite substantial bush bashing...quite literally...arrived at Bryans after 7 hrs. Bit of a rest and wading to cool the feet it was off again finally returning after 13 hrs walking and covering some 38 km with 8km of that bush bashing over quite varied terrain.
I guess the upshot here is that it was the first time ever that I'd worn joggers for any decent walk...as I always live in boots....but I must say they performed extraordinarily well with excellent comfort and the added lightness was an absolute bonus...and I'm sure that because of this reduced weight my dodgy knee never gave one bit of discomfort what so ever. My day pack weight was around 6kg...as had to carry 2ltr of water....I found no problems with the runners coping or any tendency to twist ankles etc...and I did quite a bit of rock hopping around the various shorelines too.
For me...there's no doubt there is a time and place for wearing runners...but for the majority of walks here I'd still prefer to stick with the full leather boots...but Id be more than happy to take the runners for back up or use as camp shoes.
Having said that I will be walking a large portion of the Overland Track...around 42km return on another day trip very soon...and I'm definitely keen on testing the runners there too...so will be interesting to see how they go.
sT

[Tony]

Hi sirius Tas,

Thank you for writing about your recent experience on the Freycinet Peninsular,it was very interesting, I would be interested how you go on the OT with runners. I did the OT in October 2004 we had all sort of weather from snow, wind bucketing rain and brilliant sunshine, I used some Scarpas SL

I have just purchased some WP membrane lined shoes for winter trips, I will be interested in how they perform, I hope to take them snowshoeing.

Tony

[corvus]

Ah well, always good for a campfire arguement.

Me, I wear a very worn and slightly over-sized pair of KT-26s. No tread left on the sole at all.
Liners socks and then Thorlos of Darn Tough Vermonts.
But then, I haven't sprained an ankle or had a blister for ... decades?

Cheers

Breaking in new boots! have not experienced blisters for around 20 years but did find a "hot spot" on an overnighter and needed to use cloth tape on day 4 on my last trip to avoid "hot spots",main problem with the new boots was the extra stiff leather around the heel area . Sorted that out by submerging them in water for 24 hours which soften the leather ,wore them wet to help them confirm to my foot shape so I suspect they will be fine from now on but on my next arduous walk with a load I will wear my older boots with full tread which on the steep assent will allow me to "take two steps forward" without slipping with no tread three steps backwards.
Still as you said rcaffin always good for a campfire argument so to speak (where can we have a campfire) and obviously never the twain will meet

[sirius Tas]

Hi Tony,
Further to my above comment in relation to knee troubles and soreness I thought I'd try and put some science into the equation just to check things out properly.
My runners weigh 634g as against my Blue Steel leather boots at 1514g. Given that at each step you are actually lifting the weight of one piece of footwear then the difference in weight between the runners and boots on average for one piece of footwear is (1514-634)/2 = 440g. Having measured my normal step length at 0.7m which gives approx 1430 steps per kilometre...then for each km I'm lifting 1430* 0.44kg = 629 kg. extra when wearing boots...which is an extraordinary amount. In my previous walk of approx. 38 km this equates to having carried 23,910 kg less by wearing runners...almost 24 tonnes...which again is an extraordinary extra weight to carry/lift when wearing boots.
I can't see any obvious flaws in the above...if you can...please let me know.
But on the face of it...it's no wonder I felt heaps less tired and no knee trouble what so ever after this walk. As I mentioned..I will be wearing the same runners on a large section of the OT....and now I'm looking forward to it.
Cheers...sT.

[sthughes]

Thats interesting and a tad scary although I think we need to relate it to energy more so than mass. For example you are using X amount more joules of energy to lift the extra mass, then Y amount to accellerate and move it the length of your step etc. Adding all this up would be interesting but I'm a bit rusty on my physics off hand so I don't think I'll try it (and I am at work so perhaps I shouldn't waste the time ). Also it gets complicated because in boots you may move slower and as most energy calcs have a V^2 in them it means if you move the same mass half as fast you only use a quarter of the energy (or something) so moving more mass slower might equal the same energy. Anyone keen to crunch some numbers??

[Tony]

Hi sT,

Thanks for your report, I have also done some sums how much less weight is carried in a day and got similar results, I do a lot of running and I just purchased some new different brand running shoes that are 83g lighter and I now notice how much better my legs feel after a run.

I have found some articles on weight on feet vs weight on back and VO2 max and heart rate increase, after I finish taking it all in I will post some information on this thread.

Tony

[sirius Tas]

Hi Tony,
Have found the following article which clearly states the increase in energy cost of wearing heavier boots.... http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... 900~db=all
And...http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/a ... awler=true

From the above studies it's quite clear that there is a considerable additional energy expenditure for added foot weight of some where between 8% to 10%.
sT.

[sirius Tas]

Have just found this study which also confirms the above....
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=L4a ... #PPA279,M1

[Tony]

Hi sirius Tas,

Thanks for linking me to these articles, if you PM you e-mail address I will send you some full text articles that I have managed to download.

Tony

[rabbit]

Yesterday I did a walk up Mt Duncan in the Dial Range in my Berghaus trail-running shoes.
They went really well and I didn't roll my ankle once, even though I have bad ankles.
With normal runners they seem much narrower in the toe box than runners made for bushwalking, and this is why I prefer Trail-running shoes over normal runners.

[Penguin]

Yesterday I did a walk up Mt Duncan in the Dial Range in my Berghaus trail-running shoes.
They went really well and I didn't roll my ankle once, even though I have bad ankles.
With normal runners they seem much narrower in the toe box than runners made for bushwalking, and this is why I prefer Trail-running shoes over normal runners.

Rabbit - whic way did you go up Duncan? From the west side carpark - I would use track shoes and have done so in comfort. From Purton flats - I would use boots. With the scrable over rocks and fallen timber I find boots much more comfortable.

I am still happier in rough conditions in boots, but happy to walk on good trails with shoes. I have not found any difference in my sense of well being in either boots or runners. I seem to be hot, sweaty and puffing in either and did not find any differnce in time going up Duncan from the carpark when I wore 290gm track shoes compared to 730grm boots. But well less than an hour is nothing compared to walking all day, and I have not given the track shoes a chance on an all day walk with pack. I hope sometime soon.

P

[corvus]

A good test for track shoes IMHO in Tassie would be the Arm River Track with all of its varied terrain .

[Darren]

G'Day
At least by giving trail joggers a go you will be able to make educated decisions on what is right for you.
I have a set of Nike Bombardier trail runners I got on special a while back that I use on some walks. I like them because they have a slightly stiffer sole.
I just chose based on where I'm going
Darren

[alliecat]

A good test for track shoes IMHO in Tassie would be the Arm River Track with all of its varied terrain .

Ooh, pick me, pick me...

I did the Arm river track in October last year wearing "trail runners" (inov-8 roclite 318 gtx to be precise). We had pretty miserable conditions at times. I walked through mud, slush, snow, with all the rocks and tree roots you encounter on that track, with no problems at all. My feet were not sore at the end of the day, and although the shoes were wet through (like everybody else's boots) they dried out overnight. I had no problems on the icy bits going up Mt Oakleigh as they grip quite well. On the last day, walking out, my feet stayed dry splashing through the muddy bits.

So I'd say they passed the "Arm River Test"

[sirius Tas]

I reckon I've worn boots for literally 10's of thousands of km's in some of the harshest terrain Tassie has but it's only lately that I've even contemplated wearing runners mainly because of continuing knee problems...hence looking at reducing weight carried. There was a stage last year when I thought my walking days were over as I couldn't physically walk for just on a week. I've gone from that to now being able to walk 40kms in a day(in runners) with no knee soreness what so ever. I can only attribute that to taking Glucosamine 1500 and the wearing of runners over the past couple of months.
I also recently walked into Pelion Hut and return with a geocache partner...I wore my boots...she had trail runners...at the end of the day both our feet were dry with her feet seeming to cope just as easily as mine...though my knee was extremely sore. A week later we both walked into Narcissus jetty and return...same boots and runners...same results...though my knee was again extremely sore.
There's no doubt that on good tracks with not much bush bashing runners would cope easily BUT on the other hand there are plenty of places I'd only contemplate wearing full leather boots...say Mt Ironstone or similar. Your 70/30% split sounds pretty reasonable.
Also I might add...its totally different wearing runners for a day trip...even a long one...compared to over night walks...but again it depends on where you're going. If you were camping in Freycinet...I'd have no hesitation wearing runners as the tracks are A1. If I were going to the Arthurs for a week or so.....then I'd definitely wear full leather boots and take the runners for camp shoes and backup.
It's obviously horses for courses and what suits...but I do know that for me...WHEN it's possible to do so I'll definitely wear runners or hiking runners a lot more than I've done in the past mainly to lessen the impact on knees.
I don't think any one in their right mind would suggest to wear runners in all situations...as you simply couldn't....but even Tony has said he's worn leather boots in various situations.
There is also no doubt what so ever from all the studies conducted that increased weight on the feet does add to extra energy expenditure...of the order of 8%.
There is also no doubt that the reduction in weight carried must also reduce the impact on knee joints etc.....it certainly has for me any way....and for me that's all that matters.

[corvus]

Ooh, pick me, pick me...

I did the Arm river track in October last year wearing "trail runners" (inov-8 roclite 318 gtx to be precise). We had pretty miserable conditions at times. I walked through mud, slush, snow, with all the rocks and tree roots you encounter on that track, with no problems at all. My feet were not sore at the end of the day, and although the shoes were wet through (like everybody else's boots) they dried out overnight. I had no problems on the icy bits going up Mt Oakleigh as they grip quite well. On the last day, walking out, my feet stayed dry splashing through the muddy bits.

So I'd say they passed the "Arm River Test"

alliecat,
I have actually seen walkers on the Arm River Track wearing runners so was interested in your reply thanks.
c

[Earthling]

I converted to walking shoes a few years ago and hav'nt looked back since.
I do prefer the more rigid sole walking shoes rather then the softness of volleys for arch support...personal/medical choice.
Ive used them on very rough rocky terrain (desert) and rock hopping down gullies with no excessive ankle strain.
Ive worn them in offtrack overgrown rainforrest and walking down streams and again no excessive ankle strain, plus they held up exceptionally well.
The only spot not tried is snow conditions, which I hope to try this year.
From what other shoe users have written, it seems that with a bit of common sense and forthought they should serve their purpose in snow very well.

[JohnM]

Always a good debate. My 2cents:

I've done most of my walking in Scarpa's, but I also do a fair bit of running, so I've got no shortage of running shoes knocking about. The times I've tried bushwalking in them, I've always gotten filthy feet during the day, and they stink the hell out of my tent at night - even left in the vestibule. But my boots just smell like old leather, which is much nicer than old cheese.

Support-wise, I don't notice a huge difference. But my boots are so comfy they've pretty much moulded to my feet, and I wear them because I've never had a single blister from them, ever. I also feel better wearing boots when there's snakes about.

But I have done trail runs in the Vic Alps in running shoes, day pack. No problems at all.

Oh - did the razorback in December with some heavy packs. My running-shoe wearing mate ended up with some pretty nasty feet at the end: underheel bruising, not pretty. I guess the deal is, you do what works best for you, and there's no absolute truth. Both have their place. Except for those 'lightweight' non-leather boots. They're just the worst of both worlds.

[geoffmallo]

Just got a pair of Innov-8 flyroc 310s. Initial impressions are very good. These could revolutionise my footwear (http://mycampgear.com/2009/03/25/trying ... king-boots)

[Penguin]

But my boots are so comfy they've pretty much moulded to my feet, and I wear them because I've never had a single blister from them, ever.

My Raichle's died recently and got a set of Scarpa Rangers GTX. Wore them on the weekend. Blisters on the medial side of the left ankle and lateral aspect of the left ankle. Hopefully a couple of wears and these will disappears, Douderm seems to be healing the blisters fast. No blisters with the Raichle's in the last four years.

With the Teva and Scarpa walking shoes I get blisters on the middle of my right heel due to rubbing.

I think JohnM makes alto of sense. It is not just about lightness it is also about comfiness.

P

[under10kg]

I just did the western arthurs in light runners and they worked great in the mud and wet rock. The thing is that totally wet they are a lot lighter than a wet boot and dry out quicker too.
I met a guy coming back that had done federation, and he picked up my wet runners and then his wet boots and started to do some thinking about trying them out next trip.

[Tony]

I just read this article about running in running shoes and injuries, I think that some others BW-T members might find it interesting, it was posted on the BPL forum.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive ... money.html

Tony

[jimbo42]

I tried walking with KT26s to save weight; worked fine until I was charging thru burnt scrub in Wilpena Pound and a burnt sharp-pointed stake penetrated the sole.
Luckily it laid flat and didn't puncture my foot.

Lesson: never walk in runners. I always wear boots now; but carry a pair of runners to wear around camp. Several times the boots have fallen apart or given me blisters, and I have been able to keep walking by putting the runners on.
These people who take Crocs or thongs to wear in camp are idiots; asking for trouble with cut/burnt feet, stubbed toes, bitten by snakes/spiders etc

Ankle twisting: I have done a lot of Orienteering, so I was leaning towards the theory that high ankle support was unnecessary.
So I bought a pair of "cutoff" boots to save weight on NZ tramps. Result: no *&%$#! good; the ankle twisting was much more noticeable in rough country.
So I've gone back to lightweight boots with higher sides.

[corvus]

These people who take Crocs or thongs to wear in camp are idiots; asking for trouble with cut/burnt feet, stubbed toes, bitten by snakes/spiders etc

.

As a camp Croc wearer I have never had a cut/burn stubbed toe nor have I been bitten by a spider or a snake and on one occassion a mate walked out from Pelion in Crocs when he donated his boots to another mate who had a boot failure and was heading down to St Clair
Thongs are a different story and I never wear them
corvus

[Ent]

Good to see this thread resurrected from the electronic dead. Worthwhile reading again.

Some experimenting and the result has been my opinion has not changed.

1. Comfort, frankly I can not see what people get excited about over light footwear. For walking boots weight is rather meaningless to me and I wear Scarpa SL so I am on the heaviest end of the scale. I walked from Burnie to Smithton on a fund raiser in runners and recently did the fifty-four kilometre hike to Frenchman Cap and back and true-fully I can not relate to the tiring heavy boot argument. In my experience it is hogwash. What gets me is walking on boney ground in soft soles shoes. My arches pack in and my feet get bruised.

2. Twisted ankles. Honestly for me to recommend anything but high cut boots would be setting someone up for a badly sprained ankle. Some people never have a problem but with even low cut boots I can tweak an ankle, never had a problem with high cut boots but with shoes yes.

3. Water proof. Seriously, high cut boots like the Scarpa SL and well fitting gaiters and my feet stay dry nearly always except for been stuck in a creek when find I chose my path across poorly. This is from snow to mud to crossing swollen creeks.

4. Traction. I have a pair of trial runners designed with an aggressive tread and they are not too bad until muddy ground followed by sloping flat rocks. Normal running shoes like the "Brooks Beast" are an invitation to kiss the ground. Boots are the best except when wearing out and then you realise that Scarpa are not lying about changing boots when the soles get low.

5. Longevity. Every tried to kill a pair of Scarpa SLs? Runners appear quite transient in comparison.

6. Protection. Wedge a foot between two rocks in runners and crunch there goes the skin of the ankle projection. Boots never had a problem.

Basically if you are a light mountain goat that nimbly hops from one rock to the next then I can understand why boots seam overkill but for someone at two axe handles wide then recommending or even suggesting runners appears rather sadistic. As said "you need to walk in someone's shoes to understand them". Runners fall into the same category as short tents, narrow sleeping bags and light weight poles as poor bushwalking gear to me. One question I always ask, what does the manufacture recommend? If you go outside that then that is you choice but as for what I have read by a leading expert then all I can say in my experience for me such recommendations are an invitation to disaster. As said, I just do not get a buzz or burst of energy with runners when walking. Yes when slogging out the Burnie Ten I wear runners but even then they are the heaviest ones out there as light weight ones give me more grief than any benefit.

Cheers Brett

[photohiker]

As counterpoint, I've been a boots wearer ever since I got back into bushwalking, but cracks are appearing.

One trip I did a couple of years ago, I was in the company of one of Tassie's well known landscape photographers. His build was quite similar to my own (long and lean) except he was fitter than I was (and I wasn't unfit) He pranced around like a mountain goat, hauled a heavy pack, etc etc. All on KT26's

Last year I did another trip and one of the group had tendon issues and had been wearing trail runners for a couple of years. We got wet, he dried out by lunch the next day, days before the rest of us. I didn't get very wet but it took a couple of days with me drying my socks in the sleeping bag etc to get everything dry again. I can't remember the brand of his shoe, but it at least looked more solid than a KT26.

No ankle issues on either trip for the shoe wearers, lots of variable terrain - rocks, brush, scrambles and off-track through ti-tree etc. Boots are certainly good physical protection, but I have my doubts about protecting from sprains. I've seen people sprain their ankles in boots too, so they are no panacea. I think you either have good ankle strength and watch your step or you don't. If you don't then boots will help somewhat, but you will sprain that ankle sooner or later.

SL's will definitely outlast a pair of trail shoes, but the upside is that wear-in time is almost nothing in the shoe, and you'd have to get out your calculator to work out the $ per km to see what the real difference in costs are. With the shoes you get new ones on a more regular basis, but they cost less. The shoes have the advantage of having a vast range of traction soles based on the activity, and some of the grippy soles are amazing but at the cost of rapid wear. Bit like racing rubber at the track.

The US Army did the work on the shoe weight, I think I'll defer to their research. After all, you have to lift that footwear every step - you might not notice it, but weight is weight.

The place where boots come into their own is physical protection from scrapes and puncture wounds. No contest there, although there are certainly stronger soles about than KT26's.