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.
No comments:
Post a Comment