Gear Review: Shoes

Gear.  Everyone wants to know about what gear you're taking. Even me.  I've been obsessed with finding the right gear for months.  The one that has occupied the most amount of time is SHOES. So here we go. Robin's two cents worth on shoes.

As I said before, I've hiked a lot.  My footwear of choice for years (almost two decades) has always been hiking boots.  For a long time, I didn't realize there were other options for hiking.  I thought the guy I worked with who always wore tennis shoes was just plain weird and that I could never do that.  But I should also point out that when you hike for archaeology, you are quite often in pretty rugged situations. We're rarely on a trail and there's a lot of bushwhacking involved.  So a hiking boot is actually a pretty decent choice.  There are few things worse than getting cheat grass in your socks.  Trust me on this.

But as I researched what other folks were wearing for long distance backpacking, I started hearing a lot about trail running shoes.  At first I scoffed.  There was no way they would be rugged enough to last several hundred miles.  But there were a lot of folks saying they had converted from boots to running shoes.  So I gave it some thought.  And then I gave it a try.  Here are the results of the FOUR different pairs of footwear I've tried out in the past few months (in order of tryout). I hope this is helpful, they're all a little different in style and intended use.  None of them are intended for backpacking (or at least that's what the manufacturers will tell you).  For what it's worth, I wear a women's size 8 normally.  All of the shoes I reviewed are size 8.5.  I bought a bigger size because my feet get smooshed down carrying a pack. It's also better for your toes.

1.  Aku Teton Hiking Boots. 

Weight: 2.08 pounds for the pair. Material: Suede/cloth with Gore Tex, Vibram soles. 

I love Aku hiking boots. They are very hard to find in the U.S. so when I see them, I usually buy a pair and hoard it.  As you can see, this is a pretty standard looking hiking boot.  These are the boots I've been hiking in most of this year, accumulating probably 200 miles in them.  I like them a lot, they're very comfortable and they fit my foot like a glove.  Unfortunately, I started to experience two problems with them.  First, they press rather hard on the tops of my toes.  They're great for about 9-10 miles and then my toes really start to hurt. I'm concerned I will lose toenails wearing them.  I think the forefoot is just not flexible enough.  The second problem came as a complete surprise.  I started getting a bad rash around my ankles when I wore them in the heat.  I think it's because they're so tall and the Gore Tex doesn't extend up the ankle. This is very bad.  The last thing I want is a rash. It usually goes away in a couple of days but I won't have time for that when backpacking Oregon.

Pros: Great fit, super durable, pretty light for what they are, Gore Tex
Cons: Inflexible toe area, not breathable around the ankle, heavier than other options

2. Brooks Cascadia 8

 Weight: 1.05 pounds for the pair.  Material: Cloth, no waterproofing

If you read other blogs or do research into ultralight backpacking, this is pretty much the #1 recommended shoe. I run in Brooks Adrenaline running shoes and I love them, so I had to give the Cascadia's a try.  This was my first foray into something other than a hiking boot and I really wanted to like these shoes.  I can see the benefit in wearing a light shoe.  The old hiking adage is "a pound on your feet equals 5 pounds on your back." I'm not sure how you figure something like that but the point is that you'll be less tired if you don't have to pick up a 2 pound boot every step.  But sadly, these DO NOT WORK FOR ME.  These shoes are strictly for ultralight backpacking and for people with a neutral foot.  I over pronate, which means that I walk on the inside of my feet.  This is a very common problem for women.  Add to that the fact that I'm overweight and not carrying super ultralight gear and you end up with bad, bad problems.  I took these on a 5 mile day hike and could not wait to get out of them.  They did nothing to compensate for my over pronation so my ankles were really killing me by the end.  What I did like about them was how light and agile I felt in them.  Going uphill, they were a dream.  Crossing a log bridge, I felt sure footed and nimble as an elf.  I can definitely see the appeal.  But please be forewarned that unless you're skinny, have a neutral foot, and carry ultralight gear, these probably won't work for you either. Oh and my feet were filthy after the hike because dirt comes right in through the cloth uppers.

Pros: super duper light, good traction, great for ultralight packing
Cons: no stability control for pronators, not waterproof,  not dirt proof, not supportive enough for heavy hikers

3. Saloman XA Pro WP Trail Running Shoes

Weight: 1.10 pounds for the pair.  Material: Synthetic with Salomon proprietary waterproofing

So the other shoe that gets mentioned a lot in gear reviews and magazines are these guys. I've owned Salomon shoes before and have always like them. They fit my feet like they were designed for them.  I saw these on sale at REI and decided to give them a whirl.  Oh joyous day!!  These are phenomenal.  They answered all my prayers for a hiking shoe. Right away, I could tell they were far more durable than the Cascadia's.  The toe is protected by a nice thick rubber toe bumper and the rest of the shoe just exudes durability.  A lot of people have raved about the drawstring laces and I have to agree.  They do an admirable job of cinching these shoes and, yes, they're quick to adjust (although you may be doing that a lot while you get used to them - I have to cinch my TIGHT to keep my heal from slipping).  But for me the most amazing thing is that they are designed to compensate for over pronation.  Hallelujah, thank you Salomon.  I took these on a 16 mile overnight hike two days after buying them. On the hike, during which I carried 32 pounds of gear, they were simply amazing.  I never would have guessed I could carry that much weight comfortably with what is basically a trail running shoe.  I felt completely stable and sure footed in the Salomon's - even going down hill in rocky terrain. My ankles never complained once and the knee pain I sometimes get was non-existent. The callous that I always get on the outside of my big toe felt no pressure whatsoever. These shoes COMPLETELY BLEW ME AWAY.  They're not as light and flexible as the Cascadia's and I didn't feel like a nimble elf in them but I never really noticed. 

Pros: light, durable, supportive, waterproof (and dust proof), grippy, fit big
Cons: running shoe sole may not be very durable, fit big

4. Salomon Comet GTX

Weight: 2.06 pounds for the pair  Material: leather/synthetic/cloth with Gore Tex

OK, as much as I loved the Salomon XA Pro shoes, I'm still on the fence about shoes vs.boots.  What can I say? I'm biased and set in my ways.  Despite arguments to the contrary, I'm still in the "but boots are more supportive" camp.  On top of the over pronation, I have tendinitis in my right foot (a running injury). Mushy, soft shoes make my tendinitis flair up and the support of a boot (heavier last and more lacing options) really helps in fending off problems.  I was also fearful that if my pack exceded 35 pounds with the Salomon XA Pro's, they would cease to be comfy and start to be flimsy.  So anyway, that's how I ended up trying out the Salomon Comet GTX.  I loved the Salomon shoes so much I thought the boots would be equally awesome.  Well, I wasn't completely wrong. These are great boots.  I wore them on a 12 mile day hike a couple days after buying them and they were superb.  Flexible, comfortable, reasonably light weight, great traction, and supportive.  I remained blister free for the whole hike (aside from a small hot spot on the top of the my left toes) and my feet were happy and comfy.  It was a very hot day and the rash around my ankles did not appear, possibly because the Gore Tex extends to the top of the boot.  But what surprised me was that they weren't all that good at compensating for my over pronation. I was carrying a very light pack (10 pounds max) and my left ankle kept turning in too much.  I didn't experience any ankle pain from the hike but I'm not sure that wouldn't have been true with a heavier pack.  The other issue with these boots was that my feet felt sore afterwards and I spent a few hours hobbling around the house before I worked the kinks out.  I didn't have this problem with the Salomon XA Pro's, probably because they're more flexible.

Pros: Durable, waterproof, great traction, flexible, light for what they are
Cons: Ankle support is poor, rubbed the tops of my toes, heavier than other options

So what's the verdict?  Well, my plan is to take the Salomon XA Pro shoes to Oregon. They really were the best of the bunch.  But I will also be bringing the Salomon Comets and leave them with my parents just in case the shoes don't work out. 

I really do want to put a disclaimer here.  Please try out whatever shoe you think you will take backpacking before the Big Trip.  Pay close attention to how they fit and what they do (or don't do) for your feet.  Take them out on varied terrain. Do not base your decision on what someone puts in their blog or reviews on REI.com.  Do not buy shoes to "fit in with the crowd." Remember that your comfort level begins with the foundation of your feet.

My Backpacking Resume

Most of the blogs about hiking the PCT that I've seen, were written by relatively young folks.  People in their 20s and 30s. Most with pretty loose ties to the world.  The sort of people who have the youth, health, foolhardiness, freedom, and naive ambition to take on a long backpacking trip.  I'm not that person. I'm 40.  I'm overweight. I have a very good regular job. A house. Car payment. Dogs. Cats.  Tendinitis in my right foot.  Burgeoning arthritis elsewhere.  Most importantly, I don't think I'm invincible. In short, I have the trappings (emphasis on trap) of a middle aged person.  This is why I'm writing this blog.  For all the middle aged folks out there who want to hear about this sort of endeavor from one of their own.

So who am I?  I think this is a rather important question that will provide context for other posts to come.  To understand what (and why) I'll be writing, you need to know who I am and what my experiences are.

You already know I'm 40 (almost 41) and overweight.  Well, I'm also 5'3 and female. My left leg is longer than my right (which causes real problems when backpacking).  The difference in leg lengths means that I over pronate pretty badly on my left side (more on that later).  I have a Master's Degree in Anthropology and I've been an archaeologist for 18 years.  Despite my weight, I'm actually in pretty decent physical shape.  I'm a runner - not fast but I've participated in loads of 5k's and 10k's.  I like to walk and hike (gee, go figure).

Working as an archaeologist, I have hiked A LOT.  That's part of the job.  We call it "survey" or "inventory." That's when we go out and actively look for sites.  We can walk all day. I've surveyed in 0 degrees to 110 degrees. Rain, snow, hail, burning sun. Wind.  Oh gosh how I hate working in the wind.  Hiking for archaeology has taught me TONS about being in the outdoors.  I started working back in the day when GPS units were still pretty rudimentary so I learned to navigate with a map and compass and I'm darn good at it.  I've done a lot of hiking in the middle of nowhere and I'm 100% comfortable being outdoors for long periods.  I know the kind of gear I need and what I prefer.  I know how much water I use.  I know how to deal with blisters.  I know that food, more than anything else, is the most important item in your pack for preserving your sanity and good humor.  Most importantly, I KNOW MY LIMITS.

BUT. Hiking for archaeology is really just a series of day hikes (5-10 days in a row).  At the end of the day, you go back to your motel and you take a shower and enjoy a beer - maybe join the crew for a steak dinner.  Then you go back to your room, turn on the A/C, watch some TV, and drift off to sleep in a nice comfy bed. There's none of that in long distance backpacking. But still, I'm pretty confident that my skill set will translate.  The walking day after day thing doesn't change and I've done that.

Backpacking is really just a series of day hikes punctuated by camping.  Right?  We'll see . . .

Why Am I Doing This?

This is a question I've been asking myself almost daily for the past 6 weeks. I've been preparing for my Oregon PCT trip since January but now that I'm less than a week away from starting, the heat is really on, as it were. The first few months of planning were fun, even interesting. Researching equipment, reading how other people have done the trip, trying out new gear, studying maps, staring at Google Earth endlessly. And dreaming and thinking - lots of that. That was January through May. Then in June, things started to get serious.  I went on some practice backpacking trips, starting thinking hard about food, tried to winnow my stuff down to a reasonable weight.  And then, six weeks ago, I started questioning my sanity.  That's when things really started to get real.  That's when the details started to matter - who was going to take care of my pets, how was I getting to the trailhead, how was I going to get home?  My God am I really going to backpack 450+ miles? Across a whole freaking state?  Am I really doing this?

So, the thing is, when you decide to do something like this you probably should have a pretty good reason to do it.  I guess there are folks out there who do it because "it sounds fun."  I am not that person. I think there will be fun elements but there's going to be a whole lot of "not fun" too.  I know this, I have spent a lot of time outdoors doing outdoorsy things and the outdoors, while often beautiful, can be uncomfortable, irritating, exhausting, dirty, and dangerous.  I'm no pansy, I can get dirty - I'm an archaeologist, believe me I know what dirty is.  It's the other stuff. That's the stuff that can drag you down and keep you from going the distance.  So what I'm saying, is you gotta have a darn good reason to gut it out when the chips are down.

I have two reasons.  The first is kind of weird.  I've wanted to walk a really long distance since I was about 9 or 10.  I used to fantasize about walking (or riding a horse) from my parent's house in Carson City, Nevada to my grandmother's house in Harrisburg, Oregon (about 500 miles).  I thought it would be a grand adventure. I just LOVED the idea of walking a really long distance.  Where this urge came from, I have no idea.  But the idea stuck with me for a long time. Things really started to coalesce when I was in college. In my French class, my professor showed a video on the Camino de Santiago.  I was entranced.  I didn't realize that modern folks continued to walk pilgrimage routes. The idea of walking from Paris to the Spanish coast sounded amazing and it renewed the old urge to go on  a Long Walk. 

So I guess, Reason Number One is that this is a Lifelong Dream.  I've had this irrational need to walk a really long ways for a long time.  I love the idea of using my body as a vehicle, as my mechanism for getting from one place to another.  It's just amazing to me that I can just keep putting one foot in front of another and walk from California to Washington. 

Reason Number Two goes back to the Camino de Santiago, or rather, pilgrimages in general.  Walking across Oregon will be a sort of pilgrimage for me. I was born in Oregon and I want to see it from a human perspective and not just from a car speeding down the highway.  Alongside all of this is the fact that my beloved Grandma Charity died last year. She loved Oregon.  She used to ride the Oregon Skyline Trail in the 50s and 60s on horseback, so there's a sort of family tradition in trekking across Oregon. I'm dedicating the trip to her and I want to do the whole thing in her memory.  I think on bleak days or days when I'm tired, remembering that the trip is for her will keep me going.