It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:39 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:00 am 
Offline
*

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 10:11 am
Posts: 54
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 1 time
One thing I always wonder is why boots are recommended over shoes as survival wear. I have worn my fair share of both and almost exclusively choose shoes for a variety of reasons (except for one pair of comfortable boots I own). I understand in the modern world at some places of work boots are definitely preferred to protect feet, especially the steel toed variety. The only aspect I really understand with boots being preferred is the fact that there are many waterproof ones so if wading through water your feet stay dry. There are shoes that are waterproof generally cheaper than boots that you can buy anyway, even though they aren't as common. And how often is it necessary to do this when the water could be avoided?

As I see it there are many more advantages to shoes though -

They are more comfy. Every hike I tried in boots, whether when I was in the army combat boots (dreadful) or civilian pairs afterwards (slightly less dreadful) ended up with blisters and crushed toes, especially when walking down a hill or something.

Easier to run when necessary - this one should be obvious - running, whether jogging or sprinting, generally sucks in boots.

Quieter - perhaps since they are usually lighter, you aren't as loud walking in them.

Promote more of a stable ankle - When I trail hike I actually switched to minimalist shoes. It's amazing how much more your ankle/calf muscle starts to get used and how much more stable they become. I sprained my ankle after about a year of minimalist walks/runs and it took a day or two to get back to walking far. When I was mostly wearing boots for hikes, I sprained it twice (not hiking I mean doing other stuff) and it took a week or more to recuperate.

And finally, its easier to carry extra pair of shoes when necessary as opposed to boots.


So if someone wants to refute my claims or give me more advantages of boots, I'm willing to hear them out :D . I do have a pair of ll bean maine hunting boots that I love, but other than that, I left the world of boots behind!


Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on TumblrShare on Google+
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:02 am 
Offline
* * * * *
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Posts: 11348
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 574 times
Quote:
And how often is it necessary to do this when the water could be avoided?


As often as it can't be avoided, which could be surprisingly common given one's circumstances.

Sounds to me like you just prefer shoes. I'll stick with my boots.

_________________
"Big Thanks - I promise to advance your agenda within the secret and omnipotent councils of the Trilateral Commission"

“No-one likes us, we don’t care.”


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:05 am 
Offline
*

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 10:11 am
Posts: 54
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 1 time
Oh I definitely prefer shoes. I just wonder why boots are always recommended.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:16 am 
Offline
* * * * *
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Posts: 11348
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 574 times
Having done 22 years in Army boots I gotta tell you I would never wear shoes on a trail, combat zone, disaster area or any of the generally shitty places the army sent me. There have been too many times when shoes simply would not have cut it to my liking. That and I always get more miles out of a good pair of boots as opposed to the best shoes. After walking hundreds (thousands?) of miles on uneven terrain I have only suffered one ankle sprain and that was from stepping into some kind of hidden animal hole that was about 8" deep. I don't think shoes would have helped me there.

_________________
"Big Thanks - I promise to advance your agenda within the secret and omnipotent councils of the Trilateral Commission"

“No-one likes us, we don’t care.”


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:21 am 
Offline
*

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 10:11 am
Posts: 54
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 1 time
Good point about the mileage. They are built to last longer.

Are you just referring to the fact that stepping on something like broken glass/nails/whatever thick boots are going to be more protective? I do a lot of nature hiking - and was never sent to a combat zone in my military time - so I'm just trying to understand why :D . Not trying to pester.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:56 am 
Offline
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:51 pm
Posts: 5904
Location: Not Here.
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 127 times
Think it was Raptor in one of his posts about Katrina that spoke of the importance of proper durable strong footwear in a SHTF situation.

I'll trail hike in the summer in minimalist barefoot style shoes - they can be as good/better if you have strong ankles/feet but for SHTF or other kinds of scenarios I'll take decent boots anyday. Offers more protection to the foot/ankle.

Unfortunately a nail to the foot can be the end as some here might know :(

_________________
Man is a beast of prey


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:01 am 
Offline
* * * * *
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:47 pm
Posts: 1362
Location: Kentucky
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Two words: weak ankles

_________________
crypto wrote:
It's not that you were being "harsh" so much as a "douchebag".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:12 am 
Offline
ZS Donor
ZS Donor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:38 pm
Posts: 272
Location: DFW-ish Texas
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 27 times
I live and work in a rural environment. I've tried shoes but had bad luck. I invariably get mesquite and cactus thorns in my socks when wearing shoes. When it's rainy or damp from a heavy dew, my socks would get soaked through my pant legs. And I get a lot more chigger and fire ant bites when wearing shoes. That's just my local experience. May have no bearing on your circumstances. But hereabouts, everyone wears boots when out in the sticks for those reasons.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:17 am 
Offline
ZS Member
ZS Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:49 am
Posts: 1790
Location: Yo Momma's House
Has thanked: 294 times
Been thanked: 246 times
Get boot shoes or shoe boots.

That's what I so artfully call "hybrid" like boots like light hunting/hiking boots. Basically the underarmour tactical boots or anything by merrel. Light and comfy but offer some of the support of boots. They've become quite popular I think

_________________
They see me trollin', they hatin'.... keyboardin' tryna catch me typin' dirty
Halfapint wrote:
There are some exceptions like myself and jeepercreeper.... but we are the forum asshats. We protect our positions with gusto
zero11010 wrote:
The girlfriend is a good shot with a 10/22.
Her secondary offense will be nagging.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:24 am 
Offline
*
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:39 pm
Posts: 77
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 6 times
Quality boots can be repaired/rebuilt. Shoes for outdoor activities... Not so much.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 9:40 am 
Offline
* * * * *
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 8:00 am
Posts: 2265
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 108 times
Funny thing you mentioned hiking and minimalist shoes. A lot of Appalachian Trail thru hikers have moved away from hiking boots to trail running sneakers and minimalist shoes. The idea is if you are going to hike +2400 miles you want to cut as much weight as you can and that includes what is on your feet.

However for some hikers a dose of reality will smack you in the face. They start their hike in Georgia usually March or April where they may still be running into either snow or rainy/muddy terrain, and they are dealing with some steep climbs and descents. After the first 500 miles most of the hikers that started have dropped out. The ones that drop out due to injury is usually because of a knee, ankle, or foot injury. Nothing you can really do about a bad knee, but most of the ankle and foot injuries could have been prevented with a quality lightweight hiking boot. You need 4 to 6 month to hike the entire AT. There are different types of hikers that complete a thru hike. There are the young college age hikers who have time and no business commitments. You have the retired hikers, a person in their 50's or older and still in great shape for their age. Then you have a sprinkling of middle age late 20's to late 40's folks who found themselves in a situation where they can hike the AT, either with a layoff and a healthy severance package, or a divorce, maybe they want to lose weight or whatever. Anyway the long story short is most of the folks I seen over the years who completed a long distance thru hike and say they wore nothing but trail runners or minimalist shoes the entire trip are usually thin, in shape and under the age of 30. Most folks who started out not in shape and/or are over 30 who complete the thru hike usually wore boots the entire trip or at least switched back and forth and at some points wore boots. I have seen tons of heartbreaking Youtube videos and read blogs where a person goes thru all this planning and prep to hike the AT, gets out there with trail runners, roll an ankle bad or gets a bad case of plantar fasciitis (a tear/inflammation of the tendon that runs from your heel to your toes) and just like that its all over. The next journal entry is not in the woods on the trail, its them in a hospital, or laying on a couch or bed at home.

Its one thing to have a long distance hike ruined by an ankle or foot injury that will sideline you for a month or two, but its another thing to have that type of injury when the SHTF. You can't evacuate from a bad situation on foot, you can't walk home if driving is not an option, you will have difficulty fixing your damaged home, finding food and water, or defending yourself or your family.

People also get confused with hiking boots. Snow boots, work boots, and USGI army boots are not hiking boots. Usually those types of boots are heavy. Good Hiking boots are lightweight, and are made for climbing rocks and walk long distances with a pack comfortably, but they can also serve as a "jack of all trades" lightweight army boot/snow boot/work boot. Do you know what the SEAL team was wearing when they were on the mission to kill Bin Laden? They were wearing commercial civilian lightweight hiking boots by Asolo, Vasque and Salomon. You can buy those same boots online or at most good sporting goods stores. While they are not track shoes, you can run in these boots. Think of them like a rugged version of hi-top basketball sneakers

http://www.hikingomatic.com/review-salo ... ing-boots/

http://sofrep.com/36114/former-navy-sea ... air-boots/

Some of these boots are waterproof and gortex lined so they can be used as Snow boots as long as the snow is not real deep. Also since hiking boots are made to resist abrasions and protect your toes and feet from climbing rocks, and walking thru rugged terrain, and they have a shank (non steel usually polymer) they could be used as a work boot if you are walking thru or working in debris. Also boots with at least 4" or more in height are usually recommend or even required for certain blue collar jobs and even to do activities like play paintball. These requirements are usually there due to past injuries, lawsuits, workers comp claims, etc. You will be covered if you hiking boots meet those height requirements, as long as a steel toe & shank is not also required.

Having the right boot for the job is always better, but you could get by with a good pair of hiking boots in most situations and you get loads more protection and comfort then you would with trail runners, low top sneakers or minimalist shoes.

Granted you will save weight on your feet going with a trail runner, sneaker or minimalist shoe. In a foot race on level ground you will probably run a bit faster due to this. If you are not carrying a backpack, just walking home on paved road or a smooth dirt trail and the worst that would happen is you may be chased and you need to run away fast than trail runners/sneakers/ minimalist shoes may work fine for you. Unfortunately when the SHTF the likelihood of you needing to carry a heavy load, climb/walk thru debris and rocks, trudge thru mud or snow, and have to not only run, but dodge, cut, and juke around to avoid getting shot, beat up, or eaten...a lightweight hiking boot would be a much better option.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:17 am 
Offline
ZS Donor
ZS Donor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:11 am
Posts: 3187
Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 35 times
I wear 8" Magnum brand boots whenever I can. They are stupid comfortable, waterproof, leather, and durable.

If I'm going hiking, I wear Merrell mids for adequate heel support as well as ankle stability.

If I'm going outdoorsing, I choose the Magnums 9/10 times because no shoe has ever protected my foot from the akle down or been as comfortable for hours on end.

Another reason I choose boots over shoes is physical protection of my ankle (beyond support). That impulse mostly comes from motorcycling, but I have also taken some painful rocks, branches, and thorns/thistles to the ankle and lower legs that shoes or even mid height boots don't protect from.

Boots for me, please.

_________________
The way is shut. It was made by those who are Dead. And the Dead keep it. Until the time comes. The way is shut.
-
Keeper of the ZS Fleet Number thread.
ZS Wiki


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:39 am 
Offline
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member

Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:28 am
Posts: 91
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
I prefer boots to shoes and I sit at a desk most days and very rarely do any manual labor. I wear Chippewa loggers (made in USA) and find them to be much more comfortable than any kind of soft soled shoe. It takes a while for them to break in and I own a few pairs so that I don't wear them without letting them sit for a couple of days to dry out. For hiking I wear La Sportiva Glacier mountain boots.

If you are getting blisters in your boots you are probably wearing the wrong size of boot, a poorly constructed boot, or they simply need to be broken in.

For me, the only downside is running. It is more difficult to run in boots.

Edit: A little dusty and definitely not what you would see on most c-level execs

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 1:54 pm 
Offline
* * * * *
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:31 pm
Posts: 1460
Location: NW Indiana
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 110 times
I am on your side, for hiking a prepared trail, or wandering around the camp sight areas (when dry out), I prefer my Shoes. but I wander around in a pair of Birkenstocks
and bring my boots for if wet. berk's don't do well with water.

_________________
ZS Wiki


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 3:31 pm 
Offline
* * * * *
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Posts: 11348
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 574 times
Quote:
Snow boots, work boots, and USGI army boots are not hiking boots. Usually those types of boots are heavy. Good Hiking boots are lightweight, and are made for climbing rocks and walk long distances with a pack comfortably, but they can also serve as a "jack of all trades" lightweight army boot/snow boot/work boot.


The issue boots for the Army for the last dozen years or so are actually pretty light and designed to hike comfortably with a pack for many miles. Rock climbing not so much, but they are still way better than the old plastic soles.

_________________
"Big Thanks - I promise to advance your agenda within the secret and omnipotent councils of the Trilateral Commission"

“No-one likes us, we don’t care.”


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 3:39 pm 
Offline
* * * * *
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:41 pm
Posts: 3239
Location: Central Cascadia
Has thanked: 134 times
Been thanked: 268 times
In boy scouts I remember one kid who always loved his shoes took them hiking everywhere, one day we are hiking, he steps off a rock going down trail, rolls and breaks his ankle, then severed his Achilles(sp)... All because he insisted that boots made his ankles sore, because they rubbed it. Don't know what happened to him as he was no longer active after that, but I think a little discomfort in the ankle area is better than what happened to him.

That story aside I always wear boots, I've got the Asolo TPS 520 GV leather boots. I have had them for 10+ years, they are JUST starting to get a little rough around the edges. I've put thousands of miles on them over the years and they have held up like champs. Put thousands of miles on a pair of shoes, especially on rough trail, through puddles of glycol (deicing agent we use on planes), in snow, sand, and other abrasive material and see how your feet feel.

Not to mention the ankle support, as well as its easier to keep stuff out of your boots with a pair of gators than it is with shoes, and boots are generally more water resistant.

_________________
JeeperCreeper wrote:
I like huge dicks, Halfapint, so you are OK in my book.... hahaha
Spazzy wrote:
Tell ya what... If Zombies attack and the world ends I'll hook tandem toddlers to a plow if it means I'll be able to eat...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:51 pm 
Offline
* * *

Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 4:24 pm
Posts: 586
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Shoe vs Boot
If you're always wearing boots with substantial ankle support you run the risk of atrophy in your support muscles. It's like wearing a neck brace all the time.

Yes, you can wear boots to prevent yourself from rolling your ankle. Like many solutions, one blanket solution isn't always best in all situations.

Strengthening the muscles used when you walk/run is also critical to staying injury free.

There are pretty good reasons 5 finger/toe shoes have become as popular as they are, particularly for trail running. I'm not saying everyone should wear 5 finger/toe shoes all the time. My point is that shoes are, more often than not, the best solution for most people in a healthy state.

Waterproof vs Not
The comparison between waterproof shoes vs shoes that aren't water proof is also a comparison about breathabilty. A waterproof shoe cannot possibly breath as well as one that isn't waterproof. This also impacts moisture retention. If your feet get hot and sweaty the same materials keeping moisture from seeping inside will keep moisture from releasing out. This basically makes wicking socks nearly pointless.

Waterproof shoes are not water proof. Eventually water will soak through. You also have a giant hole at the top of the shoe where your foot goes in, and water will soak in through there.

A waterproof shoe will get wet inside, and once it does, it takes much, much longer for the inside of that shoe to dry.

In some situations waterproof is something you really need. Like heavy wet snow, or walking through boggy conditions for miles and miles. In most situations waterproof isn't a thing we really need.

Keeping things out of your shoes
If you're wearing shoes (or boots) and you're finding that you get stuff inside your shoes while you're hiking, you should try gaiters. They do a great job of keeping pebbles, sand, thorns, and moisture out of your shoes. A combination of shoes and gaiters is often lighter and cheaper than just getting a pair of boots.



Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 6:46 pm 
Offline
ZS Member
ZS Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:28 pm
Posts: 656
Location: Tampa Bay Area, Florida
Has thanked: 308 times
Been thanked: 66 times
B9ev stated it, but I'll emphasize.
If you're getting blisters and other crazy things with boots, they're either crappy boots or the wrong size/fit, at least in my experience. The current army issue boots tore my feet up, my Rocky SV2s are like wearing sneakers for me, comfortable as heck and protect my feet. I don't have a problem running in my boots, but maybe you just need more practice with it.
Zero also nailed it.
If you wear boots 100% of the time, you will probably have weaker ankles and other foot/leg muscles, I switch between my boots and minimalist shoes regularly.
If I'm going into a shtf situation and I know about it, I'm wearing boots but I'm packing my minimalist shoes as my spare pair.
The only thing I don't like about boots is that they can take a little bit to dry out, but that's why you bring lots of foot powder and extra socks :awesome:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:39 pm 
Offline
* * *

Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:26 am
Posts: 397
Location: Indiana
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 36 times
Leif3141 wrote:
One thing I always wonder is why boots are recommended over shoes as survival wear. I have worn my fair share of both and almost exclusively choose shoes for a variety of reasons (except for one pair of comfortable boots I own). I understand in the modern world at some places of work boots are definitely preferred to protect feet, especially the steel toed variety. The only aspect I really understand with boots being preferred is the fact that there are many waterproof ones so if wading through water your feet stay dry. There are shoes that are waterproof generally cheaper than boots that you can buy anyway, even though they aren't as common. And how often is it necessary to do this when the water could be avoided?

As I see it there are many more advantages to shoes though -

To each his own, but I believe shoes have FAR less advantages. They do little for protection, waterproof is nearly useless as submerging your foot more than 2-3 inches would flood them, and they provide nearly no ankle support.

They are more comfy. Every hike I tried in boots, whether when I was in the army combat boots (dreadful) or civilian pairs afterwards (slightly less dreadful) ended up with blisters and crushed toes, especially when walking down a hill or something.

Sounds like you had some pretty crappy boots, I have too. Same goes for shoes, if they suck, they suck and it doesn't matter what they are. Try some Salomon boots, I've converted three people by just having them try mine on to walk around. Best boots made IMO and not a lot heavier than shoes. Also, if you're getting blisters and your toes are being crushed, you probably don't know how to correctly fit or tie a boot, no offense, most people don't. If your heel isn't firmly pulled into the hell box of the boot, it will allow your foot to slide forward, especially on a downhill slope, and even more so under weight.

Easier to run when necessary - this one should be obvious - running, whether jogging or sprinting, generally sucks in boots.

Easier to run until you're no longer on solid ground. The most common injury to trail runners is what? Ankle sprains due to the uneven surface and not having the support to prevent a sprain. A higher ankle will not only prevent some sprains but it will lessen the ones that do actually happen by a lot.

Quieter - perhaps since they are usually lighter, you aren't as loud walking in them.

Promote more of a stable ankle - When I trail hike I actually switched to minimalist shoes. It's amazing how much more your ankle/calf muscle starts to get used and how much more stable they become. I sprained my ankle after about a year of minimalist walks/runs and it took a day or two to get back to walking far. When I was mostly wearing boots for hikes, I sprained it twice (not hiking I mean doing other stuff) and it took a week or more to recuperate.

And finally, its easier to carry extra pair of shoes when necessary as opposed to boots.

Sole choice, walking style, bodyweight, all matter in this aspect. A softer sole might be quieter but it's not always better at shock absorption OR durability.


So if someone wants to refute my claims or give me more advantages of boots, I'm willing to hear them out :D . I do have a pair of ll bean maine hunting boots that I love, but other than that, I left the world of boots behind!



Now, I'm going to disagree with the comments on boots actually increasing risk of ankle injury due to atrophy or anything of the like. Your ankle is only meant to support weight at certain angles, this is why athletes are taught at which angle to put the foot under a working load in order to cut one direction or another. If you don't do it correctly, the shoe doesn't matter and the momentum will cause a shearing force that the stabilizers in the ankle and calf cannot support and footwear no longer matters. So basically, boot or not, if you put an ankle under the wrong amount of force at a weak angle, and you're going to have an issue. Which brings me back to my point, a boot still allows for the majority of ankle movement that is actually necessary for most movement. I could go play a game of full court basketball or tennis with my boots on and not need anymore mobility than what I have and I know this because I've been an athlete in competition in both sports as a child and an adult.

A good shoe can do things a boot can't, like prevent fatigue through shear weight savings, give better tactile sensation, and allows for more proprioception through your feet, but otherwise you would be extremely hard pressed to convince me otherwise. For survival as the OP intended this discussion, I want something that gives good support first, comfort second, and protection (ie waterproof) third. A shoe cannot compare unless it's being used on flat ground and not under load. This is why through hikers wear trainers and go as ultralight as possible. Their shoes couldn't support real weight or would fall apart while doing so, I've seen that personally on a 12.5 mile hike. My buddy's New Balance trail runners fell apart under 40lbs at about 9 miles in and were only a couple months old.

I'll end this by making a bold statement. The best shoe made couldn't do what my current boots do and my boot isn't even the best boot out there, for what the OP is asking.

_________________
BOB also used for backpacking
https://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=114606

GHB dedicated thread in need of serious updating!!!
https://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=112108


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 9:28 pm 
Offline
* * *

Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 4:24 pm
Posts: 586
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Dragon80 wrote:
Now, I'm going to disagree with the comments on boots actually increasing risk of ankle injury due to atrophy or anything of the like.

For survival as the OP intended this discussion, I want something that gives good support first, comfort second, and protection (ie waterproof) third. A shoe cannot compare unless it's being used on flat ground and not under load. This is why through hikers wear trainers and go as ultralight as possible. Their shoes couldn't support real weight or would fall apart while doing so, I've seen that personally on a 12.5 mile hike. My buddy's New Balance trail runners fell apart under 40lbs at about 9 miles in and were only a couple months old.

I'll end this by making a bold statement. The best shoe made couldn't do what my current boots do and my boot isn't even the best boot out there, for what the OP is asking.


Just to be clear. I didn't expressly say that wearing a boot will increase the chances of an injury. I did say that they cause muscle atrophy if using them all the time. That would be a pretty hard thing to argue with. Muscles that aren't used atrophy. The more you limit the mobility of your ankle with a boot the more you will limit the usage of many of the muscles used while walking. That's how kinesthetics work, and it can't really be successfully argued with.

I definitely agree that there are limits to what the body can do while walking. Those limits can be altered through exercise, and those limits can be altered through gear.

You're right, if a person is hiking with a particularly heavy load they will need a boot because our feet have not evolved to carry ourselves plus a large percentage of our body weight. Once you are dealing with a high enough amount of weight you need to have more support for the sole of your foot (heavy duty hiking boots are rigid for this reason). As people hike more and more people naturally move towards lighter and lighter loads. There is often a snowball effect where you need heavier gear to deal with heavier gear (and conversely, you can deal with lighter gear when you have lighter loads).

To illustrate the above example: if your load for 3 days is 40 pounds you may be able to get away with a lightweight 50L backpack weighing only 3 pounds empty - or for some a 2 pound pack holding 30L, if your load for 3 days is closer to 80 pounds you may need a heavier duty 70L backpack weighing closer to 6 pounds empty (though a lot of military inspired packs go well above that number). People also see similar savings with changing footwear.

Here's Andrew Skurka on the topic. This guy does 6 month+ long hikes covering thousands and thousands of miles, and averaging 30 miles each day and while carrying his gear. He's about as hardcore as hardcore gets.
skip to 28:08 for footwear

on the topic of effort vs weight of shoe ... this is a similar issue with cars (some of you are car guys). When you move to a lightweight set of wheels you see a performance improvement beyond just the raw difference in weight. You see an improvement specifically because the car doesn't have to work as hard to move a smaller amount of mass (the wheel and tire, or in the analogy, the foot and footwear swinging on the end of your leg).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:04 pm 
Offline
* * *

Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:26 am
Posts: 397
Location: Indiana
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 36 times
zero11010 wrote:
Dragon80 wrote:
Now, I'm going to disagree with the comments on boots actually increasing risk of ankle injury due to atrophy or anything of the like.

For survival as the OP intended this discussion, I want something that gives good support first, comfort second, and protection (ie waterproof) third. A shoe cannot compare unless it's being used on flat ground and not under load. This is why through hikers wear trainers and go as ultralight as possible. Their shoes couldn't support real weight or would fall apart while doing so, I've seen that personally on a 12.5 mile hike. My buddy's New Balance trail runners fell apart under 40lbs at about 9 miles in and were only a couple months old.

I'll end this by making a bold statement. The best shoe made couldn't do what my current boots do and my boot isn't even the best boot out there, for what the OP is asking.


Just to be clear. I didn't expressly say that wearing a boot will increase the chances of an injury. I did say that they cause muscle atrophy if using them all the time. That would be a pretty hard thing to argue with. Muscles that aren't used atrophy. The more you limit the mobility of your ankle with a boot the more you will limit the usage of many of the muscles used while walking. That's how kinesthetics work, and it can't really be successfully argued with.

I definitely agree that there are limits to what the body can do while walking. Those limits can be altered through exercise, and those limits can be altered through gear.

You're right, if a person is hiking with a particularly heavy load they will need a boot because our feet have not evolved to carry ourselves plus a large percentage of our body weight. Once you are dealing with a high enough amount of weight you need to have more support for the sole of your foot (heavy duty hiking boots are rigid for this reason). As people hike more and more people naturally move towards lighter and lighter loads. There is often a snowball effect where you need heavier gear to deal with heavier gear (and conversely, you can deal with lighter gear when you have lighter loads).

To illustrate the above example: if your load for 3 days is 40 pounds you may be able to get away with a lightweight 50L backpack weighing only 3 pounds empty - or for some a 2 pound pack holding 30L, if your load for 3 days is closer to 80 pounds you may need a heavier duty 70L backpack weighing closer to 6 pounds empty (though a lot of military inspired packs go well above that number). People also see similar savings with changing footwear.

Here's Andrew Skurka on the topic. This guy does 6 month+ long hikes covering thousands and thousands of miles, and averaging 30 miles each day and while carrying his gear. He's about as hardcore as hardcore gets.
skip to 28:08 for footwear

on the topic of effort vs weight of shoe ... this is a similar issue with cars (some of you are car guys). When you move to a lightweight set of wheels you see a performance improvement beyond just the raw difference in weight. You see an improvement specifically because the car doesn't have to work as hard to move a smaller amount of mass (the wheel and tire, or in the analogy, the foot and footwear swinging on the end of your leg).



I watched the footwear part of the video and what I've taken from it is exactly what I already knew, ultralight hikers need ultralight shoes and that's fine.

I still disagree with you. Kinesthetics do work that way, but conditioning connective tissue and muscles does not. I've been thinking on it and I divided my walking in four different categories: Around home, Errands/Around Town, Work, and outdoors. If one were to wear a very high ankle boot that's made of a very stiff material, yes, they could theoretically see weakening of both connective tissue and atrophy of muscle. However, wearing the shoe made for the job won't see such weakening and to be honest, I really don't think it's an issue anyway. The reason I say it isn't an issue is because most people lead a sedentary lifestyle and are going to be more prone to injury anyway. I'd like to do a measure of mobility with my boots on and off and then see what matters on the trail. I don't have access to high speed cameras for movement screening like I did in college or I'd go test and find out myself in the performance lab. Lateral movement (inversion/eversion) isn't affected by my boots (just from at home judgment), and dorsi/plantar flexion are barely limited at all. Most people don't have the flexibility to see a reduction in plantar flexion with a boot on anyway as most people have very tight calves, hams, and lower back. If the boot isn't majorly limiting your movement then you're not going to see those two problems.

What a boot DOES do is reduce pronation/supination and inversion/eversion of the foot which you would probably agree are the cause of a majority of ankle injuries due to instability. These are the angles we're not meant to have a shearing force anyway because there are few stabilizers for that. You can strengthen inversion and eversion stabilizers with a very funny walking exercise but that only lowers the risk of injury, it doesn't prevent it (The same can be said for the boot).

I can only speak from my own education and experience and both tell me that if used correctly, any tool could theoretically do the job. Our problem lies in that we can't watch every foot placement we make while walking and we can't always choose a surface perfect for a step to be taken. It only takes one 10 degree slope downhill, with 30lbs on your back for you to roll an ankle and not be able to walk back out under your own power while wearing your trainers or trail runners. I've faced this exact same scenario dozens of times only to not roll my ankle and have that moment of fright thinking about how my boot just saved my entire trip and a potential hospital bill. I'm in good shape, fairly flexible, and probably put an average of 100 miles in on my feet every week and it can still happen.

Your footwear, your choice, mine has prevented injury that no shoe could have, so I'll stick with them.

_________________
BOB also used for backpacking
https://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=114606

GHB dedicated thread in need of serious updating!!!
https://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=112108


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:22 pm 
Offline
*

Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:50 pm
Posts: 51
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 0 time
If your happy in boots keep with them. Shoes are the preferred footwear for most thru-hikers. I have just started hiking in the last few years and have done research and light weight running shoes are what most go with. I do prefer boots in cold, snow or rain, but love my Vasque Juxt for all other times.

http://www.cleverhiker.com/blog/ditch-boots


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:15 pm 
Offline
* * * * *
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 8:11 pm
Posts: 1449
Location: Western Slope, CO
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 240 times
as many have pointed out, modern technology has rendered most of the OP's boot complaints all but moot.

high quality boots are no more prone to cause blisters then shoes, and if you find the right ones they are a very low weight penalty. Given how many boots are now built on running shoe midsoles and are really no more then "hi-tops" running in them is laughably easy as well.

I'm all for minimalist foot ware for training or recreation, but planning to continue that into a "serious/bad/scary/dangerous" event to me is the equivalent of an athlete insisting on wearing their weight vest or training mask during a game. I've heard many arguments for it but they all seem to come down to aesthetics or ideology rather then performance.

_________________
share your tobacco and your kindling, but never your sauna or your woman.

AK, Glock, Pie.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Boots vs Shoes
PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:28 am 
Offline
*

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:34 pm
Posts: 27
Location: Northern Illinois
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
I've got a pair of trail shoes that are my preferred shoes for day to day walking around and hiking on most trails. Anything where my feet might be exposed to anything more than dirt and freshly mowed grass and I go back to my Air Force issue boots. They're tougher than anything else I have, and pretty damn comfortable once broken in. That said you can't just swap over to boots and expect to run around all day in them. AF basic training has us wearing them only half of the day for the first week so our feet can adjust.

And of course old boots are fun to decorate with a soldering iron.
Image

_________________
Formerly Cyberdude78 on the FVZA forums.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group