[at-l] Boots and Blisters <WAYYYY ON TOPIC>

[TrailR at aol.com (TrailR@aol.com)]

In a message dated 9/22/2004 8:10:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  
jbullar1@twcny.rr.com writes:

At 07:38  AM 9/22/2004 -0400, ellen wrote:
>."...I'd expect these shoes to be good  for 300-500 miles, as they
>would be if used for  running."
>
**
Sounds like a good number. After that many miles the coushining is  gone.


>I'm fascinated by this trend towards 500-mile boots. Custom  Limmers, I 
>suspect, would last for at least two thru hikes -- even  more with a bit of 
>care and maybe new soles.
**
The lightweight, cheaper boots have been around for a while. The attraction  
of 
"little, or no break-in" drew people to these boots. But I found that  good 
mid-weight boots also need little or no break in. I was putting 15 miles on  
my 
Lowa Tempest mids, right out of the box. I was very happy with these  boots.
 
As for the heavier, last forever boots, I just won't wear them. Too much  
weight 
on my feet, it makes hiking that much harder on my body. But that's just  my
opinion, YMMV.



Shoes, Weary, SHOES. He's talking about trail shoes, an  offshoot of running 
shoes. The shoe doesn't fall apart after 300-500 miles  but the cushioning 
dies and that's the important part of a running/trail  shoe. Hiking in light 
shoes is not really a new idea as anyone who has  attended Warren Doyle's 
thru-hiking workshop at the Gathering knows. Good  trail shoes however, are 
a better idea than second hand gym  shoes.


**
I guess it depends on the person. Warren can hike in 2nd hand Gym shoes.  And 
many people on the trail hike in regular running shoes, and/or trail  running 
shoes.
Trail runners are nothing more than running shoes with a better trail  tread. 
I used 
them for 150-200 miles on the trail last year and loved how they felt  on my 
feet. 
Unfortunately we had a ton of rain last year, so I switched back to my  boots 
for 
the rest of my hike.
 
hotdog AT 03