Some thoughts on high rise walking boots

[MilkTheFrog]

I've happily been wearing high rise walking boots for much of my life, when hiking, on overnighters, even walking around town for more than about an hour or so. Mainly, I suppose, because that's what my parents and often the people in the shop told me to get. And I never really questioned the logic, because of course you need ankle support so you don't break or sprain your ankle, right? But I just got back in from a walk and after having to pry my boots off, rinse them with freezing cold water to stop them from swelling and finding a couple of fresh blisters I got to thinking, this can't be the best solution. I do a fair bit of distance running these days, to the extent that I'm sometimes running the same distance as I would be walking on a good day's hiking, and although it's mostly flat and on pavements it's never my feet that cause me trouble after a run. In running, as long as your shoes fit well and provide the right sort of support for your style of running, you wouldn't ever expect to get blisters or anything like that. If you do it's usually an indication that something's seriously wrong with your shoes, that something's folding or rubbing where it shouldn't. But in hiking it's passed off as a totally normal thing. Can that really just be a function of the time spent in the shoes? Or is it actually to do with how constrictive and inflexible modern walking boots are, sure you might lessen the extent of an injury in certain circumstances but is that really worth it for the price of essentially locking your feet and ankles in place for days at a time, really reducing your freedom of movement?

Bit of a rant, but I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts. Especially if you've tried low rise walking boots or trail running shoes for any length of time in an outdoorsy setting. Thanks

 

[baggins]

to be honest, there is a big difference between running/sports shoes and walking boots. Running shoes are soft and flexible, light and made high intensity, short term exercise. Walking boots are designed for support, grip, resilience to abrasion and weather proofness. i've had many pairs over the years and i've had very few problems with blisters or comfort.
what you might find, is that, due to the stiffness or walking boots compared to sports shoes, they are less forgiving if the size is slightly wrong. there is less stretch in the fabric.
i've tried some of the Brasher walking shoes and they are very comfortable, but i wouldn't feel happy in them over rough terrain. I've actually gone the other way and now have a pair of high leg lundhags (31cm leg) and find them so comfortable (but then i am used to wearing high work boots all day).
My advice, if you want to find a pair of comfortable walking boots, get your feet properly measured, as it is not just the size, but the last (footbed shape) and the over all shape of the boots.

 

[n5750547]

The only times I still wear my boots is in the snow. Over the last 12 moths I have switched over to trail running shoes which are tough, breath better, are more comfortable , lighter and easier to put on and take off.

The reason I gave it a try is because of all the through hikers from the states who average 20+ miles per day for 6 months and swear by them.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[MilkTheFrog]

to be honest, there is a big difference between running/sports shoes and walking boots. Running shoes are soft and flexible, light and made high intensity, short term exercise. Walking boots are designed for support, grip, resilience to abrasion and weather proofness. i've had many pairs over the years and i've had very few problems with blisters or comfort.
what you might find, is that, due to the stiffness or walking boots compared to sports shoes, they are less forgiving if the size is slightly wrong. there is less stretch in the fabric.
i've tried some of the Brasher walking shoes and they are very comfortable, but i wouldn't feel happy in them over rough terrain. I've actually gone the other way and now have a pair of high leg lundhags (31cm leg) and find them so comfortable (but then i am used to wearing high work boots all day).
My advice, if you want to find a pair of comfortable walking boots, get your feet properly measured, as it is not just the size, but the last (footbed shape) and the over all shape of the boots.

There is a big difference, absolutely. But I would argue that grip is just as important for both, and that my own running shoes at least have more support where it matters, for some slight overpronation that both my physio and the running shop diagnosed me with. With regards to weather proofing, you're right, although I have learned not to rely on the claims of waterproofing on walking boots, they're never especially effective nor long lasting. What I'm trying to understand is the thinking that a lack of flexibility is somehow a beneficial thing for long term use. The foot is a very capable appendage on its own, developed alongside many other animals over hundreds of thousands of years to conform to the surface, to provide grip and to protect against sharp objects. Our own feet aren't so great at the latter since we spend our entire lives in shoes or on carpets, but surely the purpose of a modern shoe must be to work with the natural function of the foot rather than attempt to circumvent it entirely? You have to wonder when people with turnshoes or other traditional designs seem to much prefer them to modern shoes when not on modern paving surfaces.

 

[HillBill]

Thing with high boots is that there are loads of ways to both lace them, and tie them. You don't have to pull it all in tight, you can have them tight upto your ankles and then looser lacing above that. Which gives you much more flexibility. You will find high boots tend to have laces which seem too long, so that you can knot off where you want it tight, and then keep lacing and knot off again so its not as tight.

Lots of lacing methods here, some useful, some decorative.
http://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/lacingmethods.htm

Gap lacing is your friend with high boots.

 

[stone monkey]

As above lacing can play an important part in boot comfort, as can the age of the boot. For years I used a pair of quite high Zamberlain boots with no problems, then they started giving me blisters. I mentioned this when i went to a specialist boot fitter for some more and they said as boots get older the leather relaxes and causes problems. Since then I have used lowish Brasher boots with no problems ( they are now under the Berghaus brand so it remains to be seen if the quality has suffered, lol )

 

[Darwen]

I abandoned high leg boots years ago.
I run a lot too, four or five times a week on the moors, maybe once a week on the pavements around town.
I do wear a boot that comes just above the ankle for proper hiking/scrambling, but I tie the knot in the same place you would in a shoe. I just like the slightly higher cut to protect my ankle from the odd bash from a rock.
You will get far more support from strong, well used ankle and lower leg muscles than you will from a high legged boot.
Saying that, for a person who doesn't hike a lot, or doesn't run, a high leg boot may be better.

To prevent blisters, I also think that there should be greater adhesion between your foot and the sock than there is between the shoe/boot and the sock, otherwise your foot will rub against the inside of the sock (if it's single layer) over time. I think a lot of people lace their shoes too tightly, thinking it's the best way to avoid hot spots.

 

[Dogoak]

Always try on / buy shoes or boots in the afternoon, your feet are bigger then.

 

[Stew]

There is a big difference, absolutely. But I would argue that grip is just as important for both, and that my own running shoes at least have more support where it matters, for some slight overpronation that both my physio and the running shop diagnosed me with. With regards to weather proofing, you're right, although I have learned not to rely on the claims of waterproofing on walking boots, they're never especially effective nor long lasting. What I'm trying to understand is the thinking that a lack of flexibility is somehow a beneficial thing for long term use. The foot is a very capable appendage on its own, developed alongside many other animals over hundreds of thousands of years to conform to the surface, to provide grip and to protect against sharp objects. Our own feet aren't so great at the latter since we spend our entire lives in shoes or on carpets, but surely the purpose of a modern shoe must be to work with the natural function of the foot rather than attempt to circumvent it entirely? You have to wonder when people with turnshoes or other traditional designs seem to much prefer them to modern shoes when not on modern paving surfaces.

I'm guessing that with your running you've not experienced minimalist / barefoot style running shoes. It changed my life (literally) a few years back.

 

[Tonyuk]

High leg boots have their place. You would notice the lack of support in a lower ankle boot quickly if you were carrying a decent amount of weight, but if its just a day hike or quick over-nighter then a pair of ankle boots or approach shoes should be fine. Another thing with hi-leggers is that the support they give puts extra pressure on the knee joint since the ankle isn't that free to move about, again something to think about if your not carrying weight.

Tonyuk

 

[MilkTheFrog]

I'm guessing that with your running you've not experienced minimalist / barefoot style running shoes. It changed my life (literally) a few years back.

I actually started out barefoot running and kind of transitioned over the years to fully cushioned and supportive shoes. It's certainly an interesting idea, and I think most runners should try it because it can teach you a lot about technique. But for me barefoot running was far more intense on the calves and from what I've seen there's no actual scientific evidence that it improved efficiency or reduces chance of injury at all.

 

[woof]

This was one of the reasons that Brasher started his own line of boots, he found he didn't get blisters when running, but did when on a long hike.

Rob

 

[Dreadhead]

Never been a fan of modern walking boots or anything with ankle support etc. For the past 3-4 years I've worn a pair of flat soled plain loose pull-on leather boots that have no ankle support or any doo-das whatsoever. A few months ago I walked the west highland way in a pair of flat soled slip-on running shoes which are the most comfortable shoes I've ever owned. Much prefer a more natural feel without any support and haven't had any problems thus far (though theres nothing to say I wont have horrendous foot/ankle/knee problems in the future who really knows what's for the best)

As others have said, just find what you find is most comfortable and go with it

 

[Laurentius]

I am sure that sturdy "high rise" boots come in handy when the lift is broken and you have to trudge up fifteen floors

 

[The Cumbrian]

Most of the support in a boot or shoe comes from the heel cup, the height is more for weatherproofing and protection from knocks. Once you get used to the idea that your feet don't have to be dry, and start to place your feet more carefully, most people will find it easier using lighter shoes or boots.

That being said, it's not for everyone, but it is worth a try. I rarely wear my walking boots these days, preferring my trail shoes.

Cheers, Michael.

 

[henchy3rd]

Depends on what terrain one would be walking.
When I (used) to go travelling the bush/outback/ I’d wear my Danner snake boots or Irish settlers.. their surprisingly comfy & built that way for a reason.insect/animal bites can come keen or worse.
Only last week I was bitten by a snarling out of control devil dog on an extendable lead.. if I was wearing them I’d been ok.. but I’d of looked strange in the pub.
In the uk I opt for a decent pair of high ankle walking boots with a pair off gaiters.. more because off the low lying moisture/brackens & other no see ums (biting insects).
When spending some time in the woods, military boots & thick canvas Italian army gaiters.. simply because their tried & tested over time.
Woollen bandages(putees I think their called)work great too, if a little odd.. but I personally like that old style look.

 

[plastic-ninja]

I’ve become a fan of Vivobarefoot over the last ten years or so, especially now that they’ve designed an outdoorsy forest boot in conjunction with Ben McNutt at Woodsmoke.
I got a pair a couple of months ago and they are wearing in beautifully. Super comfy, light, supportive around the ankles and still fairly “barefoot” . Loving them.

 

[henchy3rd]

These barefoot boots/shoes, what if you’ve a soft British foot conditioned & taken shape over years off wearing conventional footwear.
I get the reasoning & science behind it as that’s how we were meant to walk.
How long would it really take to feel the benefits?
If I wear thin flat bottomed footwear, I end up with lower back ache & tight calves & I’m sure I’m not alone?

 

[TLM]

I have used very thin Merrel ones and a few pairs of self made Huaraches. A few months of walking with them and you should feel the difference. Just don't try the Appalachian Trail first.

I noticed that my feet take bare foot martial art training much better now on various surfaces.

 

[Aristotle]

These barefoot boots/shoes, what if you’ve a soft British foot conditioned & taken shape over years off wearing conventional footwear.
I get the reasoning & science behind it as that’s how we were meant to walk.
How long would it really take to feel the benefits?
If I wear thin flat bottomed footwear, I end up with lower back ache & tight calves & I’m sure I’m not alone?

It's all about conditioning. Don't over-do it at first. Nowadays I wear low/zero drop shoes with low/minimal/zero cushioning for all activities (other than my wellies). My feet are much stronger and less "flat" than they were. I also run on my fore/mid-foot, not heel striking. This took some conditioning, but was definitely worth it.

-For many years I wore orthotics, but now in my mid 40s, I do not and do not have knee or lower leg problems.