Most hiking shoes/trainers have vibram soles these days, the same as boots funnily enough.
The soles on my Hedgehogs are nearly as stiff as my Miendl boots. Seems that the ones you tried may not have had Vibram soles?
Last edited:
Durability of "hiking trainers", merrell chameleon blast 3 in particular?
- Thread starter lub0
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
Most hiking shoes/trainers have vibram soles these days, the same as boots funnily enough.
The soles on my Hedgehogs are nearly as stiff as my Miendl boots. Seems that the ones you tried may not have had Vibram soles?
Not enought support for that kinda distance , and man do thay pong after a bit ,can never get rid of the smell .so a no vote from me ......brasher superlites hardley any breakin time . Did a stint with the gurkas for a charity and lost toenails because of wrong foot ware ,will dig photos out of black toes ;0)
I am on my fourth pair of merrell cham's and in my opinion i would say no. If you have wet feet on day one you will struggle to keep your feet dry for the remainder of the trip. They are a brilliant piece of kit and i use them as daily footwear and exactly as designed,approach shoes only. Get some 3 season gortex lightweight boots and you cant go wrong, I have solomon Quests and they are just the ticket waterproof lightweight and support enough for UK trails, Take it from someone who has owned merrells and walked and climbed for a long time they will not do.
Again chaps my opinion !!
Again chaps my opinion !!
I told you i chase new ideas and technology round the parking lot
They are very comfortable after your feet have got used to them, biggest problem i have is me Mrs keeps hiding the bloody things though, although you do get some weird looks, but then i tend to get weird looks no matter what i wear
I disagree with you on the ankle support.
Sure you could still twist or break and ankle in most hiking boots, but they still offer a hell of a lot more resistance to ankle injuries than nothing (i.e, shoes).
Best way i can think of describing it is, it's like wearing a helmet on a motorbike.
Yes you can still get serious head injuries but the injuries would be a lot worse without it, the same with boots.
Hope you get well soon mate.
Most hiking shoes/trainers have vibram soles these days, the same as boots funnily enough.
Seems that the ones you tried may not have had Vibram soles?
Vibram make many different types of soles and they differ vastly in both density and stiffness.
As an example obviously my Vibram 5fingers have a sole made by Vibram, this is very thin and very flexible.
Where as the Vibram sole on my hiking boots is a LOT thicker and offers a LOT more support.
The Vibram soles on my approach shoes again are very very different than the Vibram soles on both my hiking boots and 5fingers.
So not all Vibram soles are the same.
Vibram is a brand name not a product, think of it like Ford.
A Ford Fiesta is very different to Ford Transit van, yet they are still manufactured or assembled by Ford.
The other thing is, the construction of the shoe/boot has a MASSIVE effect on the soles stiffness.
You could fit the exact same sole on say a sandal and say a boot and they both would feel very very different.
The times i've bothered taking my GPS with me i've averaged around 80km hiking.
This is out walking the dog, hiking with the kids and just out walking and backpacking to relax and have fun.
In my experience after around 12km i generally feel less fatigued in stiffer soled hiking boots than i do when i'm wearing my approach shoes.
Throw a fairly heavy rucksack into the mix and i strongly prefer stiffer soled hiking boots to approach shoes, even though i have the option of both.
I have done longer hikes with a heavier backpack in approach shoes and i did complete the hike.
BUT i felt noticeably less fatigues in stiffer soled hiking boots.
On smoother paths, over shorter distances, with shallower gradients, carrying less weight i would select approach shoes over boots.
On a 22 mile hike with a fairly weight backpack it's a no brainer for me, i would prefer not to do it at all over having to do it in approach shoes.
This is with my experiences with my legs and my kit.
Cheers
Mark
Gone off Merrell shoes. They all seem to to have too much padding; I rather have something that would dry quicker.
They also to seem to be heading down the 'fashion shoes' more than I'd like. It's so damned annoying that most high street shops (cotswold, blacks, go-outdoors) stock mostly tnf and merrell.
...and Mr Grylls wears them
They also to seem to be heading down the 'fashion shoes' more than I'd like. It's so damned annoying that most high street shops (cotswold, blacks, go-outdoors) stock mostly tnf and merrell.
...and Mr Grylls wears them
Does make you wonder how Nepalese porters carry 50kg via a headband up and down mountain trails wearing a pair of Dunlop pumps
Does make you wonder how Nepalese porters carry 50kg via a headband up and down mountain trails wearing a pair of Dunlop pumps
Have you seen the state of their feet though
OK thanks for all the opinions and advice, but I'm still not sure weather to take the Merrells, or my trusty German para boots which weigh more than twice as much as the Merrell's do!
As soon as I've finished preparing the allotmont for this years crop I'll be commencing training and conditioning for the trip, which consists of the full 25kg ALICE pack and you guessed it, 22 miles per day, for 12 days on the trot. I've already got the 22 mile training route all planned out in google earth, haha. I'll see what the merrells look like after all that walking and then I can make a far more accurate guess as to how they would cope with that distance plus rock uneven terrain!
As soon as I've finished preparing the allotmont for this years crop I'll be commencing training and conditioning for the trip, which consists of the full 25kg ALICE pack and you guessed it, 22 miles per day, for 12 days on the trot. I've already got the 22 mile training route all planned out in google earth, haha. I'll see what the merrells look like after all that walking and then I can make a far more accurate guess as to how they would cope with that distance plus rock uneven terrain!
Here's my 2 penneth.
I have a pair of rufuge gtx pro. Have used these everyday for 12 months. I'm on my feet all the time in them. Few miles a day. They are superb. On they heavy side for the size. Excellent shoes.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
I have a pair of rufuge gtx pro. Have used these everyday for 12 months. I'm on my feet all the time in them. Few miles a day. They are superb. On they heavy side for the size. Excellent shoes.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Interesting note on another thread about the TGO Scottish challenge, many people walking the 180 miles do so in shoes, some even in a pair of crocs!
Does make you wonder how Nepalese porters carry 50kg via a headband up and down mountain trails wearing a pair of Dunlop pumps
Being poor & desperatly needing money may have something to do with it....
Last edited:
This article on the boot vs. shoe debate was interesting - http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/gear-blog/midweek-dilemma---boots-or-shoes/9512.html
I've always been in the boots are best camp but I'm very tempted to get a pair of lightweight trail shoes, the science makes sense and the majority of thru-hikers that do the AT, PCT and CDT can't be all wrong.
I've always been in the boots are best camp but I'm very tempted to get a pair of lightweight trail shoes, the science makes sense and the majority of thru-hikers that do the AT, PCT and CDT can't be all wrong.
I suppose also it depends on where you're walking,, i.e. several days without hitting civilisation so you cant' change your footwear if anything goes wrong (Multi stitched/panelled fabric shoes are more likely to fail than leather boots) & on what you're carrying....5 kilos doesn't require the same support as 25 kilos.
Interesting article although i do think the author has taken a bit of a poetic license.
I agree that hiking boots do not 100% prevent an ankle sprain, they do offer more physical support than a shoe.
That in my case at least gives me a fraction of a second more time to do that fancy skip or fall over rather than put more weight on the twist.
My Mum's hubby fell off a ladder and smashed both his ankles many years ago, we have to be mega careful on walks as his ankles are prone to popping.
being a bit of a stubborn bloke he absolutely refused to buy any hiking boots, saying his work boots were good enough for 10 hours day, they'll do.
The work boots were boots, but they were slip on so offered very little ankle support.
As a result we had to take the short cut off our walks 3 times out of the 10 we did.
Since then he bought some hiking boots and we haven't had a problem since.
Ok works boots aren't as activity specific as approach shoes, but my point is that although hiking boots aren't a 100% ankle sprain prevention they DO offer more support than a shoe.
Agree 100%
Another thing to consider is fitness.
A 7 stone fit as a fiddle fell runner will skip over rocks like a ballerina on helium even after say 12 miles.
Personally me and my 14 stone are just about managing to throw 1 foot in the front of the other after 12 miles.
This means i'm more likely to need a little bit more ankle support later on hikes.
Cheers
Mark
Good article, and re-enforces what I've been thinking of late, ie boots are over used, no real need to use them other than loyalty to the concept in most cases. Certainly for UK bushcrafters shoes should be fine because no real hiking is involved in the vast majority of trips.
All those people walking the long trail hikes can't be wrong, and they don't all walk with 10kg packs.
All those people walking the long trail hikes can't be wrong, and they don't all walk with 10kg packs.
Your best bet is to try them and compare then to a decent pair of boots and see which work best for you and the conditions you walk over.
All i can do is offer my opinion from my experiences with both decent approach/trail runner shoes and decent hiking boots.
Just checked the shoes i wear the most are Salomon XA Pro 3D Ultra, although i have tried several others.
They're fantastic but if i'm walking over 12 miles, over rough ground or with a heavy pack for me boots are better.
I think it's a very over simplistic view that there is "no real need to use (boots)", if i'm hiking up Snowdon i prefer my boots, if i'm hiking up Ben Nevis i prefer my boots, likewise jacobs ladder etc etc.
I have hiked in trainers and sandals have done Snowdon in trainers, i made it up and down, but without that extra ankle support my feet were in a right state, to the point where i was unable to drive home after.
As i say though it all depends on who you are and what you are doing.
For me though as someone who has walked 20 miles in approach shoes and boots i personally would recommend boots.
I have absolutely no loyalty and have both available to choose from, i have tried several hikes over 12 miles in approach shoes in the vein hope that my feet might "get used to them" again in my case i am in better shape after 12 miles in boots.
I know it may seem that i'm coming across with a strong opinion here, but i am talking about something i have personal experience with, i think that theory is great, but it's not until you've put yourself in these situations you really have a right to an opinion on it.
To me it's not WHAT i can make it there and back in (footwear wise) it's what helps me make it back in the best condition.
I am pretty sure i could hike 10 mikes barefoot and make it back, i'm even more sure i'd be laid up for a week afterwards though.
Sure a tribe in Africa may well go further barefoot, we are not "advising" a African tribal member here though.
Agree with this, id always wear boots for stuff like that. Though only when needed. Approach shoes until then, it is after all, the whole point of an approach shoe.
If your feet are tough, then you will never really suffer much no matter what you wear. Gotta suffer to get tough feet though.
If your feet are tough, then you will never really suffer much no matter what you wear. Gotta suffer to get tough feet though.
If walking up Snowdon in winter I'd use boots, but as your walking up paths I don't see the point using them for the other seasons.
I have every right to compare really as I've been up and down more Welsh mountains than the majority of members here, in boots, and in hindsight and if fit enough I'd just go for shoes, ankle support is not really given in boots, thats a bit of an urban myth (apart from ski boots as mentioned in the link) but in winter a good pair of leather boots will keep your feet drier and warmer. One of the women I worked with is the head of the local ramblers association and she switched to shoes some years ago and she hikes all over Snowdonia, the Beacons and the Lake district.
Your feet so use what works for you but you have to admit that the pro evidence for using shoes is growing all the time; equipment changes, the individuals equipment needs changes, its an evolutionary process. I've some high leg leather/goretex/gambril US army boots, they are a bugger to get on with my dodgie knees so I stopped using them a couple of years back and have a pair of wellies in the car but 99% of the time use Karrimore KSB's which are perfect in the woods. I'd never advocate bare foot hiking.
(I've a pair of said boots, grade 1 condition size 10.5 for trade if anyone is interested, pm me)
I have every right to compare really as I've been up and down more Welsh mountains than the majority of members here, in boots, and in hindsight and if fit enough I'd just go for shoes, ankle support is not really given in boots, thats a bit of an urban myth (apart from ski boots as mentioned in the link) but in winter a good pair of leather boots will keep your feet drier and warmer. One of the women I worked with is the head of the local ramblers association and she switched to shoes some years ago and she hikes all over Snowdonia, the Beacons and the Lake district.
Your feet so use what works for you but you have to admit that the pro evidence for using shoes is growing all the time; equipment changes, the individuals equipment needs changes, its an evolutionary process. I've some high leg leather/goretex/gambril US army boots, they are a bugger to get on with my dodgie knees so I stopped using them a couple of years back and have a pair of wellies in the car but 99% of the time use Karrimore KSB's which are perfect in the woods. I'd never advocate bare foot hiking.
(I've a pair of said boots, grade 1 condition size 10.5 for trade if anyone is interested, pm me)
+1 on this. Boots are good, but I prefer my Karrimor shoes. They're less than £20 a pair. The soles are fairly soft compound though, so they don't last me long as I use them for work as well.
Similar threads
