Hiking boots versus running shoes

[John Mayson]

I'd like some input from more experienced scouters.

I have never found hiking boots (think the $50-$80 version you can get at
Academy and similar stores) to be all that comfortable. Yes, I've broken
them in and such. Having been an avid runner for well over 20 years I
find regular running shoes to be much better.

Our troop will be making some long hikes over the next 12 months (20
milers over 2 or 3 days). Why would I want hiking boots versus running
shoes? All of this hiking will be in the Texas Hill Country, nothing too
exotic. Is there something I'm not considering?

Thanks,
John

- --
John Mayson <***@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA

[Stephen Henning]

Post by John Mayson
Our troop will be making some long hikes over the next 12 months (20
milers over 2 or 3 days). Why would I want hiking boots versus running
shoes? All of this hiking will be in the Texas Hill Country, nothing too
exotic. Is there something I'm not considering?

Running is normally on pavement, lawns, or cinder tracks and lower shoes
work well. Hiking is over uneven terrain with roots, rocks, dead
branches, slippery leaves, etc. and higher shoes that provide more
stability work much better. They also usually have Vibram lug soles
which provide excellent traction in slippery conditions. I wear a
hiking shoe that is made like a running shoe but is higher. It is also
gortex. When you get a seriously sprained ankle in the back country,
the prospect of carrying the person out really sucks. I recommend
looking for hiking shoes at places like REI Coop that specialize in
shoes for hikers and not places that specialize in work shoes.

Another problem with running shoes is that you usually end up with wet
feet. On extended hikes it is important to keep the hikers sox dry.
Wet feet can ruin an overnight trip.

I wait until they have sales and get my gortex hiking shoes for about
the same price as running shoes. My current pair is Vasque. They are
so comfortable that I wear them when I am working in the yard or
gardening.

When I worked summers for the Forest Service on Mt. Hood in Oregon, we
had to rescue people who tried to climb the mountain in running shoes.
They would twist their ankle and then we would have to go up and carry
them down. It tends to spoil everyones day. To train for this, I ran
4 miles daily in my hiking boots every spring. I would say that it is
better to run in good hiking boots than hike in running shoes.

[c***@cox.net]

I've been both a backpacker and a runner, and I believe there is a
difference. One thing runners seldomly do is carry a load. If you are
backpacking, your feet will notice the difference by the end of the day if
you don't wear a solidly built shoe. Another consideration is that most
running is on fairly even terrain. Hiking and backpacking have lots of ups
and downs and generally uneven terrain. Again, a proper boot is better
suited. Having said all of this, I now have to admit that I've done a lot of
hiking, especially with Scout aged boys, wearing running shoes or cross
trainers. If you are going to running back and forth keeping a group of boys
together and encouraging the younger ones, then an appropriate running or
training shoe *might* be better. Consider the terrain, the load you will
carry (and don't even assume you will never end up carrying a person out)
and the example you set for younger, less experienced members. You might be
able to wear a running shoe on a particular trail, but the boy watching you
might not.

[cnyscouter]

Some scouts will want to opt for running shoes, or sneakers because they
say they are more comfortable. However, as mentioned in the other replies
those shoes are not meant to carry loads and are awful on uneven terrain.
The main reason I have seen for the discomfort is that scouts get their
hikers just before they need them for summer camp, or other adventures and
do not break them in properly. Our troop always tells everyone (leaders
too!) to get the hiking shoes well before they will be needing them and
break them in at home so when they get to camp they are very comfortable.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I'd like some input from more experienced scouters.
I have never found hiking boots (think the $50-$80 version you can get at
Academy and similar stores) to be all that comfortable. Yes, I've broken
them in and such. Having been an avid runner for well over 20 years I
find regular running shoes to be much better.
Our troop will be making some long hikes over the next 12 months (20
milers over 2 or 3 days). Why would I want hiking boots versus running
shoes? All of this hiking will be in the Texas Hill Country, nothing too
exotic. Is there something I'm not considering?
Thanks,
John
- --
Austin, Texas, USA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFGlYu/2kz4fWh3iuERAtk4AJ0WNjTgfk0pbcim3m6j2wsC28mKDACdFcs9
b00Bo9n9AjkTPbQc4xdFPB4=
=KFGE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[LarryBoy]

John,
I'd love to know where in Hill Country you are going to hike for 20
miles without hiking in circles --
No I am not being sarcastic.

We just got back from Philmont and I used Merrell's Moab Ventillator
Mid
http://www.onlineshoes.com/productpage.asp?type=brand&brandid=9&brandcatid=47&ageid=1&gen=m&pcid=72074
for my hiking boot and it worked quite well. They are mid-height and
ventilated enough for Texas.
I purchased them at Hush Puppies in the outlet mall in Georgetown, I
tried them on late in the day with sock liners and hiking socks so
I got a pair 1 size larger than what I typically wear.

I prefer running shoes over hiking boot too, but the terrain that you
will be hiking might mean that hiking boots are a better choice.
If you were running town lake then running shoes might be the best but
if you were hiking the trail that starts on the south side of Barton
Springs
and winds by cliffs the terrain might dictate hiking boots.

Please feel free to contact me off list if you want
YiS

Sam Taylor ASM T89 Austin, Texas.
701-H1 trek #9

[Anonymous]

I'm currently using a pair of these:
http://www.rei.com/product/757237 and they weigh (according to my scale) 884
grams. They're an order of magnitude more comfortable than my old boots,
and provide lots of lateral stability. What they don't provide is the
ankles support you need for a 50lb pack. If you can get other things light
enough, there's no need for heavy duty boots.... My current skin-out weight
for a week excluding food & water is 7903 grams. Your mileage (and pack
weight!) may vary.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I'd like some input from more experienced scouters.
I have never found hiking boots (think the $50-$80 version you can get at
Academy and similar stores) to be all that comfortable. Yes, I've broken
them in and such. Having been an avid runner for well over 20 years I
find regular running shoes to be much better.
Our troop will be making some long hikes over the next 12 months (20
milers over 2 or 3 days). Why would I want hiking boots versus running
shoes? All of this hiking will be in the Texas Hill Country, nothing too
exotic. Is there something I'm not considering?
Thanks,
John
- --
Austin, Texas, USA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFGlYu/2kz4fWh3iuERAtk4AJ0WNjTgfk0pbcim3m6j2wsC28mKDACdFcs9
b00Bo9n9AjkTPbQc4xdFPB4=
=KFGE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Glenn Holliday]

Post by John Mayson
I have never found hiking boots (think the $50-$80 version you can get at
Academy and similar stores) to be all that comfortable.

I found they suddenly got a lot more comfortable at the $100 level.
Serious hikers recommend spending a lot more than that. I haven't
invested the money in experimenting with really high end gear.
But I used to be ready to change out of my boots and into more
comfortable shoes as soon as I came off the trail into camp. About
2 years ago I bought a pair of Timberland that are a step up from
anything I wore before. My feet feel completely comfortable wearing
them all day long. That was a surprising new experience for me.

Post by John Mayson
Is there something I'm not considering?

Also, a good pair of boots generally keep water out better than
running shoes or other athletic shoes do. In my part of the country
most mornings see heavy dew. It's important to keep your feet dry.

Whatever choice you make, have fun hiking.

[Stephen Henning]

Post by John Mayson
I have never found hiking boots (think the $50-$80 version you can get at
Academy and similar stores) to be all that comfortable. Yes, I've broken
them in and such. Having been an avid runner for well over 20 years I
find regular running shoes to be much better.
Our troop will be making some long hikes over the next 12 months (20
milers over 2 or 3 days). Why would I want hiking boots versus running
shoes? All of this hiking will be in the Texas Hill Country, nothing too
exotic. Is there something I'm not considering?

As you know running shoes are very light and are for use on flat
surfaces. They offer no ankle support and are designed for speed and
shock absorption. Runners put on many miles. Most train 3 or 4 times
per week at a minimum and may put on 10 or more miles a day.

On the other hand, hiking shoes are designed for use on natural terrain
and for people carrying a load, where ankle support is very important
and a stiff sole is more important than shock absorption in hiking on
rocks. Hikers don't put on many miles. 10 days at Philmont is normally
between 55 and 75 miles. Most hikers are weekend hikers.

If you sprain an ankle in the back country, you may have to be carried
out or hobble out. If you sprain an ankle running, you are near
transportation normally.