Do combat boots give better ankle protection?

[forestschoolmatlot]

Swallow brought this thread to my attention, until about 17 months ago I used to be a medic for the Royal Navy with my last posting providing all medical care for the Royal Marine Mountain Leaders. Most of my career was spent working with trauma, lower limb injuries and more than my fair share of exotic rashes, I also co wrote a paper on biomechanics of feet across the Armed Forces.

So with this resume I would suggest the following do not get an ankle support they are a waste of money unless you use Coban and use that correctly, definitely increase the height of your boots I personally can recommend Lowa combat and mountain boots mil issue or Lowa Tibet pro's, both save service blokes hundreds of severe injuries every year and are worth every penny Meindl's are also a great brand.

However boots alone will only compound the issue that you have as the fantastic they will provide will only make your ankle and arches weaker so ensuring you have some light trainers or bare foot style shoes or if your a bit more risqué those individual toe things as your "in camp" shoes and for your local area. these will help your foot passively rehabilitate better and increase the overall strength and balance of your foot in your non hiking/woods time.

A wise man once told me that your boots should be your most expensive bits of kit you own and I think this is sound advice.

Hopefully this is helpful?

 

[jacko1066]

You know you need them - at least on an emotional level

I have picked up a shed load of injuries in my knees and ankles over the years - I badly sprained my knee when I was 20 and had a dislocated Fibula for several years (not picked up by the NHS!). Over compensation wore my other knee to rags and that is now my worst knee... Tendonitis in both Achilles tendons was another side effect, as was a twisted back so severe that I pulled the first rib out of position and was in danger of losing the use of my right arm as the nerves were being crushed twixt rib and collar bone... mind you the lack of support to the muscles in the shoulder area due to my breaking C6 vertebra when I was in my teens did not help in this...
I tend to wear high leg military boots rather than lower cut civvi boots.
I chose them to fit well, have custom orthotic insoles fitted (to help throw the leg into the best position) and make sure that the boot supports the foot well BELOW the ankle and that there is adequate flex in the boots for normal flexure of the ankle combined with lateral stability at the heel and twist resistance in the rest of the sole unit. The high leg gives some support to the ankle, helping resist "going over" but most support comes from lower down. I chose lighter weight boots to help prevent fatigue.
Most of the function of the high leg is to protect from vegetation and insect invasion, protection from briars and brambles, knocks and abrasions.
Such boots have helped me stay in my chosen career of Outdoor Skills Instructor and Expedition Leader for over 30 years, despite my injuries (though I did use civvi mountain boots for real mountain walking, winter hill walking etc - it is hard to get crampon compatible military boots ). I still instruct in Bushcraft Skills though age has decreed that I no longer am able to keep fit enough for the climbing, expeditioning etc I once did ...
With exercise and a good physio I have avoided the surgery I was told I needed on my knees ... for 30 years!
I am sure good boots has helped here

Wow John!!! You must be made of steel mate lol!!

I have read recently doing research on trail shoes, that in some instances even ankle length boots can be more of a hinderance than a help, in the fact that if your wearing a trail shoe that maybe it allows the full movement of your ankle therefore stopping injurys, what do you think about that?

I have always been a boot man but the reading I have done has certainly got me thinking.

Sorry to side track the thread op.

Atb
Steve


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[John Fenna]

Wow John!!! You must be made of steel mate lol!!

Sorry to side track the thread op.

Atb
Steve


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not steel - chip board.. hence the injuries!
Good info from the Matlot - buy good boots and a good sleeping bag - when you are not in one you are in the other

 

[wildsurvivor]

what about just ankle supports?

 

[CAL]

Thanks for all the useful info - its been a while since I had chance to check in on the forum and there's some really good advice here. My ankle is much better now but its not got its original strength or full range of movement so I am off to get some professional advice on it. I'm seriously considering some higher leg boots - just want to make sure my orthotics are still the right shape and that my ankle is sorted first through.

 

[Wayland]

Sounds like you need a pair of altberg field & fells,

Rob

+1 on that.


I turned my ankle badly in a slip with a heavy pack at a meet up a couple of years ago. ( My fault, I was wearing civvi street boots instead of something suitable for unknown terrain.)


The ankle has troubled me ever since and limited my outdoor pursuits.


I bought a pair of Altbergs early this year and they've got me back out there. Best boots I've ever owned.

 

[Tooand]

Love my Altberg boots, solid, well made and light weight, I recommend them highly, getting back to the original question I have never(touch wood) twisted my ankle wearing combat boots, but I have in approach shoes and walking boots

 

[rik_uk3]

Do you really need boots? Given that more and more hill walkers and long distance hikers are using trainers/'assault shoes' I believe boots are over relied on (look up the TGO challenge thread and you'll see what I mean). To really support the ankle they would need to be high and so tight as to immobilise the ankle which as someone else said would transfer stress and strain to the knees (and hip)?

Boots fit the bushcraft/outdoor uniform or image but IMHO are over rated these days by many.

 

[Teepee]

I've just done the Cape Wrath trail in fell running shoes, been a die hard boot wearer for years believing boots would offer more protection till I swapped last year to fell shoes. I have never sprained an ankle but they used to collapse at alarming angles sometimes over rocky paths. I've watched others in boots in this forum have utterly wincing ankle angles in boots in the hills (Stu ) . Never seen it in shoes and my ankles actually feel much better supported in shoes. I didn't have one wincing angle over the 200mile plus route and I would have had 2 or 3 every day in my Scarpa SL's that I use for 'bulldozing' rough tracks. It's as though the muscles don't react in time if they feel supported.

 

[santaman2000]

Do you really need boots? Given that more and more hill walkers and long distance hikers are using trainers/'assault shoes' I believe boots are over relied on (look up the TGO challenge thread and you'll see what I mean). To really support the ankle they would need to be high......

Depends on what you mean by "boots" and "high."

Theses high top shoes are called "boots" by most people nowadays:



and you're right, they offer no protection or support.

Both the other hand, ordinary, real boots such as these aren't especially high but do offer both protection and support without being over tightened. (but you're absolutely correct that people over rely on them; they aren't foolproof:

 

[santaman2000]

That said, in a few minutes, I'm going out into the woods geocaching with Barbara wearing shorts and a pair of sneakers (trainers) You're also absolutely right that boots aren't required.

(I said, hoping we don't go into gumbo mud that will suck anything less than 10 inch boots right off my feet. LOL)

 

[rik_uk3]

I'm away camping near Sennybridge on the 23rd and will wear trainers and take my 'Crocs' for around the camp use. I still like the idea of boots, perhaps as I wore them on trips for over forty years I'm sentimentally attached but also as I age I've become more critical of kit and 'cut the cord' so to speak with a few items that I would have thought well worth packing only a couple or three years ago.

 

[Tristar777]

Hi. Id say it depends on your feet and what support they require! Its an individual thing. Some people will swear by trainers and soft shoes, others by army boots and others by something else. But if the support that the foot wear gives isn't right for YOUR feet it wont matter what you wear or how much you spend. Get professional advice for your feet. You will only get advice here for everyone elses feet

 

[Wayland]

I turned my ankle badly in a slip with a heavy pack at a meet up a couple of years ago. ( My fault, I was wearing civvi street boots instead of something suitable for unknown terrain.)

The ankle has troubled me ever since and limited my outdoor pursuits.

All I can say is that if I'd been wearing decent boots when I slipped on that bank I don't think I would have had half the pain and trouble that I've had for the last couple of years.

Shoes and trainers are fine until something goes wrong. Good boots will at least offer some support to the flesh, sinew and bone when you really need it.

 

[rik_uk3]

All I can say is that if I'd been wearing decent boots when I slipped on that bank I don't think I would have had half the pain and trouble that I've had for the last couple of years.

Shoes and trainers are fine until something goes wrong. Good boots will at least offer some support to the flesh, sinew and bone when you really need it.

A nice idealistic prospect Wayland but in reality it does not live up to its promise in the real world...I'd be interested in links proving me wrong though. IIRC Nike did a study on 'naked' foot runners/athletes, i.e. no shoe ware and it turns out that apart from the chance of cuts from a rough surface the 'naked' runners had less injuries than those who were shod.

Don't get me wrong, in the Arctic snows I'd want boots or insulated wellies (as popular with those living in the Arctic) but for padding around UK woodland IMHO boots are no more than a part of the 'Bushcraft Uniform.'

 

[Macaroon]

If you're walking "off piste" in anything other than ideal conditions and carrying any kind of load, as far as I'm concerned it's a no brainer to wear boots that support the ankle; wet banks, tree roots and all the other obstructions you come across will soon have you turning your ankle. I can imagine if you're young enough and know that you're lower limbs are super fit and strong you might get away with it.

I used to go out a lot with ex-Royal Marines who were very strong and fit and none of them would dream of going loaded without boots for that very reason; things may have changed somewhat in the intervening years, but I doubt it

 

[John Fenna]

Apart from the support issue with boots, combat boots tend to allow you to stand in deeper puddles, cross shallow streams etc more dryshod than trainers or low shoes as well as keeping out more of the debris/insects/mud than any trainer ever could and protecting against knocks and bumps.
Other than my home made "ancient" footwear, I wear combat style boots all the time as they offer more protection than lighter footwear. In the mountains I would always wear ... Mountain boots!
It is nothing to do with the "Bushcraft Uniform" - it is about comfort and protection!

 

[Wayland]

I guess if you are just camping out of the back of a car on a commercial site then trainers will be fine for you Rik.

I also wouldn't wear boots if I was a fell runner and I guess an impartial survey run by "Nike" can always be trusted.

All I can say, as ever, is what my personal experience has taught me. Feel free to make you own choices of course...

 

[yoko]

Problems come when you wear light shoes with heavy backpacks. I'd say if you want to hike lighter, start from top to bottom, shoes go last.

 

[santaman2000]

....I also wouldn't wear boots if I was a fell runner and I guess an impartial survey run by "Nike" can always be trusted. ......

Actually, since Nike also make combat boots, then yes, it probably can.