[at-l] Boots, Shoes, and othermobiles was Re[2]: I'm on THE List

[tmcginnis@ucclan.state.in.us (Thomas McGinnis)]

     I think these are really great (and balanced) comments. I am right in 
     the middle of a boot question, myself, although, since I'm not getting 
     set for another go in 2000, my need for an answer is not too 
     time-dependent, either.
     
     On my throughhike, I wore monster mountain boots, heavier upper, 
     lighter soles, than the Limmer. Never a blister (had 800 miles on 
     'em), never a problem, but when the day included long road walks, I 
     winced at the end of the day (VA, PA, NJ/NY). I was skinney, packed a 
     16-20 pound pack exclusive of food/water, BUT I hiked with a reckless 
     abandon with regard to where/how I placed my feet: the security of 
     foot placement with these boots was intoxicating, and I rarely 
     regarded it with concern. *Especially the downhills and rocks.*
     
     When I tried to rip out a 29 miler on the Long Trail at this year's 
     Gathering, I wore trail running shoes (running shoes with slightly 
     larger sole cleats). I had to place my feet carefully, but I was very 
     surprised that at the end of the *17.5* mile day, I did not have sore 
     feet. Packed, of course, a pretty light load, but couldn't avoid 
     rocks.
     
     I've recently taken to wearing my current mountain boots (six pounds 
     the pair in 12D) on day hikes, just to refresh the memory banks, and I 
     don't know where I am at, preference-wise.
     
     Of course, at this point, extensive field testing is the only path, 
     isn't it?
     
     Sloetoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: [at-l] I'm on THE List
Author:  "Mara Factor" <m_factor@hotmail.com> at ima
Date:    12/1/99 6:53 AM


The amount of weight you put on your feet will help determine what type of 
footwear is appropriate.  When walking on uneven ground, nicely cushioned 
shoes may not support your feet enough.  Stepping on one sharp rock under 
your arch can be very painful.  Repeat that for millions of steps.  With a 
boot, you generally have a stiffer shank which distributes the pressure so 
that your entire foot can provide support.
     
For the most part, smaller hikers who travel light can easily make do with a 
trail runner.  Large folks with heavy backpacks just wouldn't get enough 
support from a pair of trail runners.
     
When my pack is heavy and the terrain rough, I would not be able to use a 
lighter shoe.  Even though they slow me down - a lot - I was much happier in 
the Whites with my Limmer's than I would have been with a mid-weight boot, 
much less a running shoe.
     
Of course, everyone is different.  I did see people out there successfully 
using running shoes (usually trail runners).  Almost invariably, they were 
traveling much lighter than I could possibly hope for.
     
Mara
Stitches, GAME99
     
     
>From: ryan patrick bowles <rpbowles@midway.uchicago.edu>>Subject: Re: 
>[at-l] I'm on THE List
>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 08:19:16 -0600 (CST) 
>
>...
>Less weight on your
>feet is like lessening your packweight. 
>
>At the risk of 'trolling,' I wonder why most hikers don't take this a step 
>farther and stop wearing boots altogether.  Running shoes are much 
>lighter, more comfortable, and have more cushioning.  The only reason I 
>can think of for wearing boots is the ankle support, but high top sneakers 
>would probably take care of most of the ankle problems.
>...
     
______________________________________________________ 
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *

==============================================================================