Or if you’re going for a real hike. We hear news of tourists needing rescue from the Alps all summer because they thought sneakers would be good enough.
Ankles roll real fast in the loose rocky ground above the vegetation line.
But yeah you don’t need special shoes to go for a walk on a wide well-maintained gravel path.
This is a key difference. Even though the trail down the Grand Canyon has a lot of elevation change, it's well maintained and pretty smooth. I went about halfway down in sneakers no problem. Rocky stuff, even a little, are ankle twisters and having support is important. Back when I used to hunt, it was mostly flat but sometimes rough terrain and walking along/up/down rocky slopes. Sometimes there is no trail, you're crashing through brush. My favorites were LL Bean boots - about 6", laced a little loose so there was some freedom of movement but support if it was needed. Leather because snakes.
Not sure why this is getting front page attention but this is largely a fluff sales piece.
> Dr. William Spielfogel, a podiatrist in New York City and medical adviser to the Good Feet Store, has seen sprains and fractures in patients who don’t wear more traditionally appropriate hiking footwear. “If anatomically you have weak ankles, flat feet or a history of injuries, it would be better to add some arch support,” he said.
Forget the arch support - if you are actually hiking and/or are not in the best shape or are in an area with Snakes and low brush you are much better off with the ANKLE support of actual hiking boots.
And I'll add, since it is a sales piece, as I put <100 miles or less a year on my boots, I am on year 13 or 14 on my Salomon boots with zero evidence of stopping any time soon with them. Definitely worth the money.
+1, ever since I had a hairline fracture on my ankle it's been weaker and more prone to rolling. If I go hiking with sneakers I'm taking a chance that I'll roll it badly enough that I'll be in pain for at least the rest of the day.
The ankle support in a proper hiking shoe will literally save me from that.
Also the other weekend I ended up trapped in a torrential downpour for at least an hour. Only thing dry were my feet, so yeah. Merrell hiking boots rock.
At any rate, I backpack and trail run high triple/low four digit miles per year in the pnw and am 1000% on the fuck boots train. At this point the vast majority of thru hikers advocate trail runners of some form, which isn't exactly new: Ray Jardine has been saying sneakers or barefoot since what, the 90s?
Boots are nice for keeping crap off of your ankles in dense terrain, but the biomechanical ankle support thing is dubious.
Hey, the same Ray Jardine that changed rock climbing with his invention of the spring loaded camming device. What a guy, I had no idea his influence reached beyond the world of climbing.
I think biology has a lot to do with it. I pronate and seem to have weak ankles naturally and boots provide and immense amount of support on uneven terrain that I would not be able to get otherwise.
I can see some level of athleticism overcoming this but I would expect a large portion of people to receive the same benefits (assuming they laced them all the way up, etc).
For long distance and/or easy, clear trails I can see trail runners being great. I did all my hiking in college with sneakers of some sort and wanted boots quiet often in the mountains of east tn. But these were on clearly marked trails not necessarily clear trails.
I did all my hiking in scouts with boots and my time in the fire service with boots (for obvious reasons) so perhaps I just developed a tolerance for boots.
Tbh, hiking boots are really necessary for long hikes with differing weather elements. I can't imagine any of the sneakers listed in the article are water resistant enough to handle deep puddles of mud or bouts of ice and snow. The boots also help with traction and pressure differentials.
You're absolutely right, I think this article is using the colloquial term for "hiking", i.e., a 1-hour walk back and forth without terrain or elevation changes. Everyone can enjoy whatever they want, but I think a new term is needed without it being confusing.
I hiked the grand canyon rim to bottom in sneakers. A trail runner would probably be better, but for hikes like this (that are clearly more than 'walks for 99% of people') hiking boots are a bad idea.
A large fraction of hikes are not going through the bushes or through mud. Its on a difficult path, but a path nonetheless where the important factors are simply you dont get tired and you know how the shoes move.
Well, we're not really discussing that here. Hiking to the bottom of the grand canyon is NOT "a 1-hour walk back and forth without terrain or elevation changes."
I don't think it's just a matter of bush or mud. When I've worn hiking boots it's because of the gear I was carrying on my back - the extra cushion and ankle support is important when you're on hour 8 of having an extra 40 lbs on your back.
I was obviously exhausted but the path is very well maintained. Its not like you have to do any climbing or walk through brush. I think the shoes you would wear for a 6 hour walk in a city are what are also good for this type of hike.
You don’t want water resistance, you want fast drainage. With decent socks, you’ll do way better. If you get water in your water resistant boots, you’ll have wet feet the rest of the way. If you’re on ice, regular hiking boots aren’t going to be any better than anything else, and you can slap yaktrax on sneakers, too. If you need crampons, you’re out of hiking boot territory already anyway.
I routinely hike 7-10 miles and always prefer sneakers. This is in California where there's not a true mud season and there are paths you can hike on. For conditions like those and I would absolutely recommend something light like sneakers.
I think people over estimate the ruggedness of the activity because it makes it seem more intense. I realize a 10 mile hike is shorter than what a through-hiker would do, but ultimately you are walking on a path doing a similar motion that you would do walking on a hilly dirt road.
If it's muddy and wet, my feet are gonna get slimy and gross no matter what. If I'm wearing overbuilt footwear, my feet will remain slimy and gross long after it's no longer wet and muddy.
Even trail-running shoes are over-built most of the time - most people don’t need the lugs (the trails 90% of people are on are just fine as long as your shoes aren’t totally worn out) or the drainage they offer, and rock plates are total overkill for anything low speed.
That said, it’s all pretty dumb. Wear what’s comfortable. If you don’t mind the weight, wear boots. I don’t think there’s a serious advantage in ankle sprains, given how poorly most people fit their shoes and lace them up.
But that’s also just one ultra/trail runner’s dumb opinion.
I went on a guided hiking trip in Iceland. The first day, we climbed to 1000 metres, after our guide warned us the weather was going to be a “little streamy”, which is a humorously Icelandic way of describing 1 degree Celsius, hurricane-strength winds, with accompanying horizontal rain.
If we’d been wearing sneakers rather than our hiking boots I suspect we’d have left our feet frozen on the trail somewhere.
In thick brush I'm gonna get scratched up all over, a couple inches of leather around my ankles doesn't make much difference. Long pants and sleeves make a difference.
It's also a matter of total mileage and load. You're not going to want to wear sneakers if you're carrying 40 lbs over 50 miles of rough terrain in the next 3 days. You're going to want that support and extra cushion.
Walking along Wall Street is hardly considered hiking...try somewhere like Arizona, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and I'll bet you change your mind...
Clickbait title. The article essentially says if you're just going for a short walk on a trail, you can get by with trail-runners. Which... duh.
> "But he notes that trail-running shoes can capably handle a light or moderate hike over mild terrain—it’s rougher environments that call for thicker soles and supportive midsoles."
With that said, I've used something in between trail runners and hiking boots for the past decade: The North Face Ultra 111's are rigid (with a shank in the sole), water resistant, and came with gore-tex outer sole (the previous versions, at least) for great grip. Yet they look like a normal sneaker, which means I can wear them in urban areas without standing out, and don't need to bring other shoes with me when I travel.
Traditional hiking boots are quite heavy, take a long time to break in, and provide unnecessary protection and support if you know what you are doing. On the other hand, a lot of thru-hikers are completely wearing through multiple pairs of trail runners.
I read jardine and gave up my hiking boots years ago in favor of thick polyurethane soled sneakers like nb 990. Those are great for dry rocky trails. Add more rocks and you'll wish you had a toe box and some ankle protection. I've tried using lightweight sneakers and suffered some bad falls due to the soles slipping. Otoh, if you want to do 20+ miles per day, you have to make choices
I've been using the Vivobarefoot Tracker Forest Esc boots for years now. Those soles will grab anything you put under your feet. Still feels mostly like you're barefoot (which is the whole point :D ).
I wouldn't go hiking in a "sneaker" as your typical sneaker didn't have the proper sole nor is it likely to be water resistant. I do wear hiking shoes, that are low ankle like a sneaker. But they have good sturdy non slip soles. And are fairly water resistant.
After hiking & backpacking around a decent bit with a good few styles of shoes, I have found my answer : The Salomon X series [1]
The SalomanX are the lightest hiking shoes I've tried, while simultaneously feeling rugged. They easily have the grippiest sole of any shoe I have tried. There is no shoe I'd trust more on wet rock. The lacing system is chef's kiss. I would wear them in the city if they looked fashionable. I've never had blisters with them, and option for a wide-configuration is perfect for my feet.
I am a low-top dude. I find that ankle freedom allows me to place my foot in a manner that doesn't cause sprains rather than the restrictive nature of faux-ankle support mid-tops. I'd go for their hi-top versions if I was hiking in powder, but that's about it. No amount of ankle-support is going to keep your shoes dry if you step in stream or an unknown puddle. Lastly, any situation that needs deep grooves probably needs crampons/micro-spikes anyways, so having them built into the shoe is kind of redundant.
To the article's credit, the Saloman's do feel more like a beefed-up sneaker than a toned-down hiking shoe.
For uneven terrain, only if you don't need your ankles. Basketball shoes might be more appropriate.
The big differentiators between tennis shoes and hiking boots are impact protection and waterproofing. For a long-term outdoor adventure, waterproofing and protection essential. It's difficult to beat what is essentially an army boot in these terms, although they may not be the lightest or most comfortable. The keys to selection are optimization and being adequately prepared.
As someone who's hiked barefoot with pack for weeks on mountain trails in Nepal, I've come to the conclusion that "ankle support" is not what is promises. I have rolled my ankle often enough when I was younger, but never when hiking or walking barefoot. (Of course there are other dangers, but that is not the point here.) Nowadays I like to hike in five-finger type footwear. Boots have their uses (stomping through the roughest terrain), but you always best off paying attention to what you do in whatever mode you hike around.
47 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 99.7 ms ] threadAnkles roll real fast in the loose rocky ground above the vegetation line.
But yeah you don’t need special shoes to go for a walk on a wide well-maintained gravel path.
Not sure why this is getting front page attention but this is largely a fluff sales piece.
> Dr. William Spielfogel, a podiatrist in New York City and medical adviser to the Good Feet Store, has seen sprains and fractures in patients who don’t wear more traditionally appropriate hiking footwear. “If anatomically you have weak ankles, flat feet or a history of injuries, it would be better to add some arch support,” he said.
Forget the arch support - if you are actually hiking and/or are not in the best shape or are in an area with Snakes and low brush you are much better off with the ANKLE support of actual hiking boots.
And I'll add, since it is a sales piece, as I put <100 miles or less a year on my boots, I am on year 13 or 14 on my Salomon boots with zero evidence of stopping any time soon with them. Definitely worth the money.
The ankle support in a proper hiking shoe will literally save me from that.
Also the other weekend I ended up trapped in a torrential downpour for at least an hour. Only thing dry were my feet, so yeah. Merrell hiking boots rock.
I'm hesitant to get into the full holy war here, but at a minimum you should be aware that this is a hotly debated topic: https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/13910/is-ankle-...
At any rate, I backpack and trail run high triple/low four digit miles per year in the pnw and am 1000% on the fuck boots train. At this point the vast majority of thru hikers advocate trail runners of some form, which isn't exactly new: Ray Jardine has been saying sneakers or barefoot since what, the 90s?
Boots are nice for keeping crap off of your ankles in dense terrain, but the biomechanical ankle support thing is dubious.
I can see some level of athleticism overcoming this but I would expect a large portion of people to receive the same benefits (assuming they laced them all the way up, etc).
For long distance and/or easy, clear trails I can see trail runners being great. I did all my hiking in college with sneakers of some sort and wanted boots quiet often in the mountains of east tn. But these were on clearly marked trails not necessarily clear trails.
I did all my hiking in scouts with boots and my time in the fire service with boots (for obvious reasons) so perhaps I just developed a tolerance for boots.
A large fraction of hikes are not going through the bushes or through mud. Its on a difficult path, but a path nonetheless where the important factors are simply you dont get tired and you know how the shoes move.
I don't think it's just a matter of bush or mud. When I've worn hiking boots it's because of the gear I was carrying on my back - the extra cushion and ankle support is important when you're on hour 8 of having an extra 40 lbs on your back.
I think people over estimate the ruggedness of the activity because it makes it seem more intense. I realize a 10 mile hike is shorter than what a through-hiker would do, but ultimately you are walking on a path doing a similar motion that you would do walking on a hilly dirt road.
That said, it’s all pretty dumb. Wear what’s comfortable. If you don’t mind the weight, wear boots. I don’t think there’s a serious advantage in ankle sprains, given how poorly most people fit their shoes and lace them up.
But that’s also just one ultra/trail runner’s dumb opinion.
If we’d been wearing sneakers rather than our hiking boots I suspect we’d have left our feet frozen on the trail somewhere.
Wearing trail running shoes for a strenuous hike -- without first building up a lot of ankle strength -- is a good way to get injured.
A few roots and stones are fine in trail runners. But if you are scrambling on loose stones or tromping in thick brush you want boots.
I think these days there are more hikers doing the prior.
Simple as
> "But he notes that trail-running shoes can capably handle a light or moderate hike over mild terrain—it’s rougher environments that call for thicker soles and supportive midsoles."
With that said, I've used something in between trail runners and hiking boots for the past decade: The North Face Ultra 111's are rigid (with a shank in the sole), water resistant, and came with gore-tex outer sole (the previous versions, at least) for great grip. Yet they look like a normal sneaker, which means I can wear them in urban areas without standing out, and don't need to bring other shoes with me when I travel.
https://thetrek.co/appalachian-trail/top-footwear-appalachia...
Traditional hiking boots are quite heavy, take a long time to break in, and provide unnecessary protection and support if you know what you are doing. On the other hand, a lot of thru-hikers are completely wearing through multiple pairs of trail runners.
The SalomanX are the lightest hiking shoes I've tried, while simultaneously feeling rugged. They easily have the grippiest sole of any shoe I have tried. There is no shoe I'd trust more on wet rock. The lacing system is chef's kiss. I would wear them in the city if they looked fashionable. I've never had blisters with them, and option for a wide-configuration is perfect for my feet.
I am a low-top dude. I find that ankle freedom allows me to place my foot in a manner that doesn't cause sprains rather than the restrictive nature of faux-ankle support mid-tops. I'd go for their hi-top versions if I was hiking in powder, but that's about it. No amount of ankle-support is going to keep your shoes dry if you step in stream or an unknown puddle. Lastly, any situation that needs deep grooves probably needs crampons/micro-spikes anyways, so having them built into the shoe is kind of redundant.
To the article's credit, the Saloman's do feel more like a beefed-up sneaker than a toned-down hiking shoe.
[1] https://www.salomon.com/en-us/shop/product/xa-pro-3d-v8-gtx-...
For uneven terrain, only if you don't need your ankles. Basketball shoes might be more appropriate.
The big differentiators between tennis shoes and hiking boots are impact protection and waterproofing. For a long-term outdoor adventure, waterproofing and protection essential. It's difficult to beat what is essentially an army boot in these terms, although they may not be the lightest or most comfortable. The keys to selection are optimization and being adequately prepared.