Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion Boots v. Trailrunners

Hello Knowledgeable Outdoors Community,

I have long been an advocate of high-top boots for any active outdoor adventure. My reasons are the following:

1: Your feet are your most valuable asset, ergo: more protection, more better.

2: With high-tops and appropriate lacing you are better protected from rolling your ankle.

3: Boots tend to be more waterproof/resistant by nature. and it is usually more difficult to get dirt/sand/gravel into your boots.

Yet as I've hiked more and more, I've finally tried my first pair of trail-runners, I love the firm sole and great support but I also love the flexibility and lighter weight. I think I may be converting soon (plus with ankle gaiters, you're just about impervious).

Now as I contemplate doing the JMT and or HST again in the next year, for the first time I'm considering forgoing my boots for TR's. What are your thoughts (specifically for backpacking/scrambling in trail runners)?

I did San Gorgonio in a pair of ultralight road running shoes and did just fine - though I wouldn't do it again. The sole was too flimsy. I just didn't have my trail runners with me.

I actually just bought two pairs of trail runners:
Saucony Peregrine 4 and Salomon S-Lab Sense 3 Ultra SG.
(I couldn't decide, so I went with both). The Peregrines have a very soft, squishy sole and the S3Us have a harder sole. Both have a sole plate to absorb and shield sharp rocks.

After doing Whitney back in June, I was talking with a guy doing the PCT and he was wearing trail runners, and said a lot of others were as well.

I usually hike in trail runners, but did Whitney in a pair of boots and longed for my TRs the entire time.

SB, I used to be the same way, but I've been doing dayhikes and mountain training the past year as much in low-top approach shoes as in boots. Definitely lighter. I have noticed a tendency for my ankles to roll a bit more on rugged terrain, which is only natural without the high-top protection, but with a light pack and poles it doesn't necessarily concern me.

Before making a call on trail runners for an extended backpack, though, I'd load up the heavy pack for at least a day's hike in them on rough ground and see how it feels.

To quote Charlie Brown;
Aaaaaaaauuuuuugggggghhhhhhh! Not the Boots vs Trailrunners debate! Not on my beloved Whitneyzone! Take a look at any other backcountry forum on this topic, and I hope to the God of Mt Whitney you will conclude that everyone's feet are different, and absolutely nothing anyone tells you about their preference and experience can be of any possible value to you in deciding what will work for you as between these two categories. I will give up my 1960's designed, 1980's built all leather Norwegian welt Vibram Montagne soled Zamberlain 5 1/2 lb Trekkers when they pry my cold dead toes out of them, but I would never recommend them to anyone ever. And I would listen to advice on underwear, feminine hygiene, male contraception, chemtrails and accepting Jesus as my personal savior before listening to one word on boots vs running shoes.

But that's just me.

I used to wear boots a lot but am a convert. These days, I'm only throwing on the boots when there is snow or significant broken rock/talus which an beat up your soles. The runners are just more comfortable.

If you're backpacking, the boots will keep your feet more comfortable and resist fatigue due to the support, but wear your runners more during the daily training and exercise to build up those little muscles and toughen them up. No comparison if you're scrambling. I've worn a pair of 5-10 approach shoes for the North Ridge of Lone Pine Peak and never threw on my climbing shoes. Only issue was getting my feet wet at night on the way back while crossing a creek going cross-country.

My feet are particular about the boots I put on and have a tendency to get blisters. No issues with any runners/approach shoes.

Good grief...

the only footwear I've been using in Sierra summers since 2008:

Now that's one of the better rants I've read in quite a while. But Salty, let your hair down and tell us how you really feel . . .

LOL.
SD, you don't need advice on some of those anyway!
The only trail thing more a personal-choice might be food.

- Thanks 2600! I also walk around home barefoot a lot and train in softer running shoes. I think I'll invest in a good pair of trail-runners. Also I read your write-up on your Blackcap Traverse TR, it looked like great fun!


- Haha. Thanks Fishmonger. I dropped $400 on a pair of La Sportivas and had to exchange em for Lowa and I returned those, it seems that all of those Mountaineering boots run far too narrow for me (my shoes size looks like it belongs to some creature from the Mesozoic era).

- I'm also sufficiently satisfied if SteveC wants to scrap this thread for the succor of saltydog

It is certainly a personal choice, and the diversity of choices out there is remarkable.

What I advise is for people to be open minded about these things. I, too, never used anything but Vaque boots in my youth. They always hurt, I always got blisters. But what choice was there??

I now interact with the PCT through-hiking community a lot, and they are firmly centered on trail runners or even just running shoes (which I don't favor). For a lot of these people, their base weight is under 10 lbs, some under 5.

Also, the weight of what you carry makes a big difference. for day hiking, a low boot or trail runner seems best for me. When I'm carrying a lot of tools or a pack over 20#, my feet hurt if I don't have more support.

If I had "stuck to my guns" of my youth, I would have given up hiking decades ago, as I could no longer put up with the pain.

BTW, I think ankle gaiters are invaluable, as are poles.

That's not me SB. I've been dealing with several injuries and haven't done anything big in quite awhile. Last traverse was Thunderbolt to Sill two years ago.

Oh, sorry about that, I thought I had seen you post a few things from that blog!

Food! I'll talk about food all you want. As far as hiking is concerned, I am convinced that there are orders of magnitude fewer differences among the zillions of articulated digestive and metabolic functions between individuals than there are in the physiology and anatomy of the human foot.

SB wrote:
> it seems that all of those Mountaineering boots run far too narrow for me (my shoes size looks like it belongs to some creature from the Mesozoic era).

I have a wide foot, too. FINALLY got a pair that didn't give me blisters: New Balance MW978, size 11 4E. This last trip, I never had one blister or problem. ...well, one big toenail is looking a little bruised. But those shoes are the best. Except a piece of the waffle sole peeled off the bottom (no wonder given the terrain I covered.) So I need to replace them. And now the problem: New Balance doesn't make them anymore!

Closest thing is New Balance MW1569, but they have eyelets rather than the older styles. I guess I'll have to get these, since NOBODY else that I know of makes a 4E hiking shoe.

And, SB, they even make a Mesozoic 6E width just for you!

This May, I found a boot that is the best of both worlds! I bet there are others!

http://www.sierratradingpost.com/salomon-conquest-gore-tex-hiking-boots-waterproof-for-women~p~7238y/?colorFamily=01



These are lightweight Salomons. No break in period whatsoever. Much lighter and flexible than traditional boots. Basically a trail runner that ends higher up your leg.

At the time I bought these, I was developing a numb big toe with my beloved Asolos. I had made an appointment with a podiatrist, but my $#@*&% HMO made me wait 3 weeks to get an appointment. In the meantime, thinking the problem might be impingement, I shopped around for a shoe with a big toe box and found out that Salomons are known for that. Further, I too have followed the boot v trail runners discussion, and these looked online like trailrunners in the shape of a boot, so that intrigued me as well.

Turns out, these new boots delivered on both fronts. No more toe numbness (the toe box is bigger than average). And they are super comfy and light. The only thing is that the sole is not quite as thickly protective as a traditional boot, so for a few hikes my feet were getting a little tired and feeling the terrain. But I figured I'd adapt and I did!

When I finally did see a podiatrist, I brought the new boots with me. He gave them a thumbs up for me (and confirmed the prior impingement issue). He did note that it is important for the sole of a boot to be rigid from the heel to the ball of the foot (the first 2/3 of the sole), meaning that you should not be able to twist or bend the boot/shoe in these places. (I think it is supposed to be flexible after that or you can become vulnerable to plantar fasciitis and achilles heel.) These boots passed that test even though they are so light and seem flexible.

Three letters...EVA.

This is the mid-sole material used in trailrunners...and road running shoes. It breaks down very quickly and the pebbles you walk on will feel like razors after about 100 to 200 miles of use. My Kayland Contacts are working on a thousand and I don't feel any rock. So, in the long run, they are a more expensive choice than good pair of European made mid weight backpacking boots.

They are for trailwalking. Forget steep off trail fun stuff.

I use something similar, I use them on short on trailwalks...8 to 10 miles, +<=3,500'. Basically, to save wear and tear on my boots.

Those who are big on the railroad tracks, they work extremely well, not so much for anyone finds a impromptu ridge or drainage exciting.

"With high-tops and appropriate lacing you are better protected from rolling your ankle."

Your ankle is supposed to twist & roll. The number of muscles & tendons in your foot+ankle dwarfs those in your knees/hips by many orders of magnitude. Properly conditioned, they all work in unison to keep you steady and "sure footed".

If you isolate your ankle/foot in a cast (ie boot), guess where twists & rolls are transferred? That's right, but your knee isn't supposed to twist - it's just a straight lever.

Here's a good conceptual model: your hand/wrist becomes tired from some kind of activity. Rather than spend time strengthening your hand/wrist muscles to perform the task(s) as required, you decide to lock it down in a rigid glove/cast, transferring all the kinetic energy to your elbow & shoulder.

Now, who would ever consider doing something like that? Well, the same is true with a barefoot/minimal approach vs boots. But the process isn't easy for "zoo humans". We've been wearing shoes with heels/ankle support for so long that it takes a very long time to condition your foot to the point where it operates as it should in nature.

To give you a specific example: me. It took me two years of jogging in 4mm rise minimal trail runners before I felt confident enough that I could barefoot run (on semi-packed dirt). And even then, it's a modest proposition; day-in, day-out, I use my trail runners.

The modern day bible that describes how humans walked & ran for 2m years - up until 30 years ago - is:
http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes-Greatest/dp/0307279189

Here's a quick recap:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JWUhW5yRdI

Here's a medical overview of how our feet & legs are suppose to operate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSIDRHUWlVo

"last about 100 to 200 miles"

First of all, that's not entirely true. If you follow the accounts of this year's crop of PCTers, they're getting 400-500 miles per pair of shoes.

Secondly, so what? Trail runners cost $100+. It costs me more than $100 in gas every time I head to the Sierra from SoCal. For many numbers of out-of-state & foreign visitors to Calif, they're spending $1,000s to come out & visit.

I have never understood the allure of false economy & attempted savings. You'll spend way more than $100 for a single night in a flea-bag hotel + dinner before/after your hike. Your shoe is a key component - why not spend the money on a quality trail runner that will do the job?

Here are the biggies worn on the PCT. As far as I'm concerned, 20-somethings averaging 30 miles/day for 4 months are experts on what and doesn't work when it comes to hiking:

http://www.amazon.com/Brooks-Cascadia-Trail-Running-Shoes/dp/B00B1JJBVI

http://www.amazon.com/Altra-Lone-Peak-Trail-Running/dp/B00CM3AJG8

PS While Zpacks are nice & light, this is the go-to UL pack for most:
http://www.ula-equipment.com/product_p/catalyst.htm

I've run the whole spectrum.

Age, weight and fitness play a role.

Me 57 and now carry 20 lbs more than I should = I need more boot.
Last year did a 3 day backpack with a light, low-cut trail runner (Sportiva Wildcats.. love 'em). Descending I'd get bad ankle roll. Had to tape ankles.

This year I am finding my ankle rolling is a concern, but extra weight makes it hard on feet. I've been using heavy Asolo boots and they make me slower, but add comfort and safety. YMMV.

"the boots will keep your feet more comfortable and resist fatigue due to the support"

Shoes are not supposed to provide support. Your foot/ankle muscles (yes, including your arch) are supposed to be developed to the point that they can handle your body's load.

How the notion that our feet/legs are somehow defective, and need support/other aids/tools, is a question for the advertisers & marketing men who popularized these concepts back in the day.

Your feet & legs are NOT defective. They are the result of 2 million years of evolution on the African plains. That we choose to wrap them up and let them atrophy is a mystery.

Again, who would apply the same measures to their hands? What about rock climbers? Oops, my hand is too weak, I need some kind of fixed claw device to drag myself upward. LOL

You'll know your feet are in their proper state of development when they are as strong as your hands. They should be thick & muscular; an easy way to condition your feet without first toughening your soles is to wear these:

http://www.lunasandals.com/

Look, I don't want to come across as banging my own drum, but I'm the same general age as you guys, and while I've always been a strong hiker (aren't we all if we're still doing it today?), the last few years of training have really upped my game.

LOL. Um, couldn't that be called "gloves"?

I almost always wear some type of glove whenever I use hiking poles to protect my hands. As far as my feet I am still in the boot camp and wear Asolo but not the full grain leather heavy ones.

Oh please just get off your pedestal, skip the sandals and go barefoot then. Who said anything about feet being defective? Yes, shoes are supposed to provide support, especially if you're lugging a heavy load backpacking, and especially if you're on rough terrain. Before I was in a bike accident, I was trail running 9 miles a day in my approach shoes, but that doesn't mean boots don't have their place, or that everyone's feet are the same.

BTW, climbers do wear gloves once in awhile, or tape our hands, and the fixed claw device is called an ice axe. LOL indeed.

Agreed. Soapbox.

As for feet evolving on the African plains for 2m years, a similar toughness might be said for Sherpas ,although this next example is just use, not genetics: Their hands are like tough leather, thick enough to pick up hot metal pans or lanterns. Ask me how I learned that lesson, thoughtlessly did the same and felt skin sizzle at 18,000 ft.

With my surgically repaired left great toe and a nutcrackered compression fracture in the mid-foot, I cannot even wear tennis shoes around the house. Lots of individualization here. Mid-weights + a stiff carbon under-insole is what I must use.

Take a look at Salty's salty comments earlier. Spot on.

Really? Got news for you, buddy: If I were there in the "old country" loping along in the plains, I would not be able to walk without a serious limp, because believe it or not, some people -- lots of people -- ARE born with defects that without boots, orthotics, et al (one of my legs is one inch longer than the other, and I have nearly no arch development at all, medically documented.)

Your attempts at, um, neutrality, have fallen solidly flat.

There aint nothing sissy about wearing whatever it takes to get you from here to there.

> There aint nothing sissy about wearing whatever it takes to get you from here to there.

  Reminds me of the desk-jockey ranger who once told me I couldn't have a true wilderness experience if I carried a Spot or other electronic device on my back-country trip.   ...Hmmmm... I'm going to start telling everyone they can't have a true wilderness experience if they hike only on trails.


Edit: But I do want to give Hobbes credit here: He told me about the sandy beach at the middle Crabtree Lake. That turned out to be a sweet place to spend a night.

 

So , what kind of pack weights did they carry back there on the African plains? And what kind of rocky, stepped and switchbacked trails, talus and scree did they climb, and descend, 15 or 20 miles a day for three weeks to six months?

I'll pile on some more...

They did not even live long enough to wear out their feet, or it did not matter anyway. (Got eaten by lions or killed by next door neighbors, died of malaria or precursors to HIV and Ebola). They lived long enough to reproduce (14) and did not make it to most PCT-er's age.

Well it looks like salty steered it into a different debate entirely, the classic "Evolutionary anthropologic podiatry" discussion.

I steered it? I just asked a follow-up. To the rather interesting assertion that since our feet evolved to gather seeds and chase antelope as teenagers in the Serengeti they don't need any support to carry 10 days worth of food, shelter, insulating clothing, bedding and navigational aids up the Golden Staircase and along the Sierra Crest. As actual adults.

I thought you were going to ignore this thread, s-dog!

I tried. But my purpose was preempted by the Applied Pedagogy of Paleolithic Podiatry: plainly too perfect to pass up.

The was an old saying: "every pound on your feet is an extra five pounds on your back".

I've used low-top hiking boots (Merrills are mine) for back-packing, ankle-high Gore-Tex, and heavy leather boots. It's all a trade-off: weight vs. support.

Another factor is wet-weather protection. Ankle-high boots provide better rain protection, but using gaiters is advisable regardless of what kind of boot is worn. I forgot my gaiters this week and ended up with soggy feet...LOL.

My mistake. I should have said starts breaking down.

I got 300 or 400 miles on my Garmonts lows and they have been toast for a while. EVA breaks down quickly...sorry, that is just a fact. I just use them to save my boots.

We are not talking about a trip to the Sierra, we are talking about shoes and how they are used. I know I am going to buy shoes whether I go to the Sierra or hike locally. I paid about $180 for my boots, I have had them resole once. With my boots, I am not limited to trails, which I am with trail runners. They will last at least 1,500 miles, 2,200 if I resole them a second time.

I have found those who use trail runner to be evangelical religious about their use. Me, I don't care one way or the other what others use. I own 3 pairs of hiking footwear...I use all of them depending on what I plan.

I gave a pair of these to my father-in-law last fall. He wore them for a half day walking around the Zoo, then wore them for Cactus to Clouds (23 miles, 10k elevation gain) the next day, no blisters! For a while Salomon advertised them as the 'lighest backpacking boot in the world.' I really wanted to keep the boots for myself, but the soles are narrower than my other Salomons. I have very weak ankles, so I like as much support/stability as I can get.

One of my friends that has a pair of the Conquest boots compares them to wearing high top basketball shoes because of how light they feel.

When people ask me for advice on what to wear, I usually to tell them to use the lightest shoe/boot they can get away with.


Good to hear you have a good doc. I went to a podiatrist once. When I told him what I was dealing with, he told me to find a new hobby. When I told him I also have to walk for my job, he told me that I may want to think about a career change...

Bee,

It is funny how that works. I was talking to wifey the other day and said my body is now paying the price for all my youthful stupidity...football, softball and basketball day after day on concrete or asphalt.

As for Hobbes statement...it's correct in a limited sense. To those individuals and cannot be applied to the general hiking population. Personally, I have no desire to go 30 miles a day for one day, let alone 4 months. My style is smell the flowers and take a bunch of pictures...30 miles a day leave little time for either.

They sound like ideal shoes. If only they came in 4E widths!

Steve, I have owned two pairs of Saloman Quest 4D backpacking boots (for four years now).


My first pair (I bought em for the JMT) lasted the JMT plus two years, nearly 2000 miles of use. Never lost their grip and never lost their waterproofing. They were threadbare and coming loose at places, but to date were the best boots I've owned (plus the lightest high-tops I'd found). I didn't get a single blister on the JMT, and aside from stepping in creeks depper than my boots were high, i never got wet feet. I bought em a size up and the toebox was plenty big enough so long as I laced correctly. My only gripe is that they were an ugly rust orange.

I bought another pair about a year and a half ago. Better color, same general look, but now the ball of the feet is broken down, I'm getting heel blisters, and the waterproofing is worn thin.

They are still the grippiest boot, I just don't know if I feel like taking a $230 bath again

Those are 'MY' boots! I got my first pair (the ugly orange color) for $175 and luckily scored my second pair (olive green) for a few dollars less.

When I bought the Conquest boots (that are my father-in-laws now), I was hoping they'd be a cheaper alternative. I probably could get by with them, but the soles are a good .5" narrower than the 4Ds. When I was debating what to do, a sale popped up on the 4Ds, bought them, and gave the Conquest's away as an early Christmas present.

For comparison sake (IIRC), the 4Ds are advertised at about 23 ounces each and the Conquests at 18. I'm not sure what size they use for the weigh-in, but I'm guessing they're not whatever size SB or Steve wear!

I've tried a couple of different hightop, lightweight boots, but I keep coming back to the 4Ds.

I wear what the conditions dictate. I've done Whitney in trail runners, lightweight boots, and mid-weight boots. Last January, I wore plastic mountaineering boots. I didn't meet anyone who summited barefoot or wearing sandals on that trip.

I have bone spurs in my achilles and plantar fascia where they connect at my heels. First thing the podiatrist showed me was how to select a good pair of shoes, find ones with a stiff arch. This combined with custom orthotics and stretching exercises for my feet have me active again. He didn't mention anything about the toe area or heel itself. I have been wearing New Balance runners around town because they seem to design their shoes to consistently provide this support.

You are "treading" on dangerous ground Hobbes. Do you, or have you ever, backpacked carrying a heavy load (over 15 pounds) without shoes or boots?

Not every hiker has perfectly conditioned feet. I've had three foot surgeries over the years and would never backpack in bare feet. There are very few people able to backpack in bare feet and not suffer for it.

About five years ago, my wife and I encountered a lady backpacking on the Paiute Pass trail in bare feet. She said she used flip-flops on rocky ground. She had been in the backcountry for 2 weeks. The mule packers called her "Little Foot", after seeing her tracks. She came from Laguna Beach, CA. and never wore shoes unless absolutely necessary...so you can figure it out.

Bob W wrote:
> You are "treading" on dangerous ground Hobbes.

Bob, based on prior posts, I suspect Hobbes has done more backpacking than many of us. He's an ultralight packer, makes his own equipment, and hikes off-trail pretty often. In my mind, he's "an animal" in the hiking world.

We all can see that everyone has their own opinion about what are the best boots or flip-flops to hike in. You mention "Little Foot". A while back, there was also "Barefoot Ted", who hiked the Main Trail barefoot. It takes all kinds.

I am pretty sure the OP is enjoying reading the wide spectrum of opinions.

I like 'em for some people. I work in the outdoor industry and see both sides and uses.

Trail runners are attractive because of the weight savings, easier initial cost, cooler temp (for hot days), and what most people would consider a grippier sole. Boots are more supportive, longer lasting, and keep debris out better. Both work well.

If you're a heavier person, you may need a bit more support. A hybrid boot like the Salomon Quest 4d is an excellent choice for a lot of backpackers, hikers, and scramblers. The grip is also really good and it's relatively roomy to accomodate foot swelling and insoles. One thing I love about this boot is you can lace it lower like a trail runner but lace it higher in adverse conditions, descents, and injury situations. I've got a pair of these and love them - but they do run a bit hot.

If you have specific questions I'd be happy to help more.

The Salomon's pictured above are very similar to the Asolo's I have used for several years. The ones pictured below are retired but I have a new pair that are almost exactly the same. They are ready to go right out of the box and don't need any break-in time. First time I wore my new pair was on the Crow Pass hike.

I feel they are lightweight enough and I use them all kinds of hiking including pretty rough winter hikes using kahtoolas. I occasionally use trail runners for training for Mt. Marathon but I prefer the boots for almost anything.

Gee, I was in SF for a few days (walking in my Jesus 2.0 sandals, 'natch) and didn't realize this thread had continued to grow.

Here's my deal - every sport/activity has generational overlap. You see it everywhere - skiing, surfing, motorsports, etc. Old(er) schools can usually be readily identified by their tendency to stick to what worked during the era(s) they first became involved.

I use surfing as a frequent example, because besides fishing/camping/hiking, it's what I've done for decades. Most guys my age gave up long ago trying to either (a) compete with the kids; or (b) bother trying to keep in shape. The typical result is:
- they ride a bigger board (aka a "crutch")
- when lying on their stomachs, they pivot on their bellies like a rocking horse
- they look sort of foolish (and of course stand out because of their condition & over-sized boards)
- they bark in frustration at all and everyone who is paddling quickly around them, taking waves, and generally making their lives not so fun

My wife refers to these types as walrii ie plural of walrus in pig Latin. To make the picture complete, many times they have red faces and 'walrus' mustaches.

So what's the point? The point is that those who continue to pursue the "he-man" approach to backpacking are generally mocked and dismissed by the younger crowd who live & breath the trail. (We're called JMTers or 'day hikers'.) Within not-too-many-years, we'll all be gone from the scene, along with the memories, and the styles & approaches popular today will become the (new) standard.

How the "he-man" thing got going in the 60-70s is worthy of its own study. The early pioneers like Muir, Brewer, et al certainly weren't shlepping their own sh!t - that's what pack animals were/are for. Ditto for Sierra Club outings - who in their right mind would reduce themselves to a draft animal?

Besides, we evolved over 2m+ years not carrying anything. We (barefoot) walked, strolled & jogged 5-10-20 miles/day sans possessions. Bipeds cannot efficiently carry loads, which is why (obviously) we bred/developed domesticated pack/draft animals. Those who persist can end up crippled if they continue doing so. As for snow conditions, the good ol' IceMan had these for shoes:

http://www.iceman.it/en/clothing-equipment

My guess is it's tied in somehow to Clyde. Some NY marketing person realized if he could simultaneously promote the ideal & shame the weak, he'd have himself a nice little niche in which to exploit and jerk around an early generation of outdoorsy consumers.

The problem with this approach in the face of science is many-fold:
- down fill power is now 900, soon to approach 1000. 15 oz of 1000FP is 15,000 ci or around 20-25 degrees CLO. Add 5-6 oz of super-strength shell material, and a 20-25 bag will weigh in around 20 oz.
- synthetic materials research is driven by milspec requirements. Climashield, Dyneema, Kevlar (ie Ursack), etc, etc have all made their ways into other products like backpacking years after the troops used them as everyday equipment
- medical research. While the author of 'Born to Run' popularized the notion, it's this Harvard anthropologist who developed the initial research & theories:

http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/

The bottom line is clear: lose weight, walk/jog and carry light loads. You of course are free to disagree with this free advice, but you'll be spending more time debating on 'Net forums rather than actually getting out and hiking if you insist on ignoring the evidence.

PS For a demonstration of the generational effect, you can view it in action on these forums. Young(er) people who are actually walking the walk aren't debating the relative merits of this vs that; no, they're out there hiking and sharing their experiences via social media:

http://www.pcta.org/live/

If this doesn't make you want to get out there again right after you've gotten home, then you've successfully avoided the bug.

Hobbes,

Again, I am agnostic on footwear part of this. However, I do see more UL people in trouble than those who take a traditional approach. They tend not to have sufficient gear, and the right gear; and clothing when things go bad. Trailrunners, shorts and a poncho in wind driven rain don't work all that swell.

Once I hiked with a group of a dozen who you use this philosophy between all of them they did not have sufficient bandages to stop one person's heavy bleeding.

I take from all and incorporate them into a philosophy that make me and those I care about safe while hiking.

It was rather interesting to watch the UL JMT hikers camping near us on this morning at 11,500 feet below Forester Pass this is July 20. Forecast was "sunny and dry all weekend."



4 hours of rain and hail was the opener to this sunny and dry weekend. So much came down, I had to use the bear can lid to shovel it off the tent. Super windy that even our fully guy'd out tent felt somewhat challenged. We talked to a couple of UL hikers the day before on Kearsarge - they had abandoned the JMT in Mammoth because they had "caught some weather" and were back in for some smaller segment in the south because the forecast got better...

Not sure how they fared this stormy morning that followed, but it was again "some weather" for sure.

I think it is important to make sure we distinguish the group called "ultralight" from the group that we might call "unprepared".

They are generally two very different groups, although I see the two often thrown together.

The endless crap about ultralight hikers is pretty funny - images of an ultrastupid moron huddled in pouring rain under a poncho from the 99 cent store with no shelter, no warm clothes, no food, and one soggy match. Like an ultralight hiker wouldn't bring long pants or a decent shelter. Funny stuff. You just don't see ultralight hikers going back to a heavy pack, I wonder why that is...

Personally, as if anyone cares, I settled on New Balance trail runners, usually on sale at Big 5 in wide sizes. I go a size large, add a good insole, and don't try to get too many miles out of them. Where crampons are needed or general snow camping, I wear light Scarpa mountaineering boots. If I want more weight, I guess I could add ankle weights, but I don't.

Ken,

Are some of the UL crowd prepared...sure. However, most of the people I end up sharing something with are those who have made a determination it is best to go with less and depend on the kindness of others when things go wrong.

I do not determine whether they are hard core UL or just every day UL/Light. Most of my contacts with these people have been with those that are unprepared for conditions and the what can happens. On the whole, they do not have workable maps (less than Tom Harrison Cartography), sufficient first aid kits, clothes for conditions that can happen, unaware of the latest forecast and not all of the 10 essentials in their packs.

I go light, unless I am doing a forest service volunteer patrol. My day hike base pack weight is ~5 pounds.

Now there's a new distinction for ya: "hard core UL" or "just every day UL/Light." What you're really describing is an unprepared mooch. I've seen hikers with 50 pounds of heavy gear rummaging through leftover food bins because they were counting on others. Not just supplementing their food, they were truly counting whatever people left behind, and they were upset that some PCT hikers wiped out the bins before them. Mooching saves money, which is a motivator regardless of how much weight is in someone's pack.

A map is the UL choice vs a GPS. I can't tell you how many times I've handed out an extra map that I printed, and none of them were to an "ultralight hiker." Poor navigation skills or bringing a bad map is usually because of inexperience or ignorance, not because someone is trying to save a 2-ounce map. A UL hiker might cut the borders off the map, but that's silly, not dangerous.

Same thing with not knowing the weather forecast, no weight saving there, that's just a stupid mistake, the kind anyone can make. And if you're in the woods for more than a few days, the forecast is probably too old to be useful anyway.

I'm clearly defending ultralight hiking here, but only if people do so with adequate knowledge and the extra skills required. It's about careful planning and alternative gear that performs the same function as "traditional" gear. It's not about "going without" or making bad decisions or mooching.

So, Snacking Bear, how's this discussion working for you so far?

I drew my own conclusions about 53 posts back.

I feel like a spectator at the gladiatorial games. Not to say that I'm not enjoying the spectacle.

Salty, I think I owe you an apology. You called this one from post #2

Salty did warn you, Snacking Bear. Seen it happen many times on various forums.

Unfortunately, some people lump all UL hikers into one group of unprepared morons making bad decisions about everything.

Others get defensive about it (myself included) because many UL hikers spend a lot of time and money trying to find the optimal balance between weight, function, and safety. I guess I should not get defensive about it.

All I have said in my travels as a hiker and as volunteer most of my contacts are with those have embraced light. The trailrunners, the small packs, the substandard this and that. An example of this my first aid kit has been used over more over the years taking care of people who embrace this philosophy than myself.

A map is the UL choice. It was my choice too for most trip until I made the decision to carry it all the time so I could accurately give coordinates to SAR or other first responders just in case. Since I am not a UL hiker a few extra ounces ain't a big deal.

Hard core, UL/Light is a distinction without a difference. They all embrace light uber alles. They do it for the most part with a deficient skill set. More skill can mean a lower pack weight...they go directly to the lower pack weight with out getting the requisite skills...and I'm talking about trailwalkers who have been doing this stuff for 20 years.

As for mooching, this is another area I have more UL people doing. Again, this is my experience. YMMV.

I have the skill set and the money to buy 900 fill power jackets, trailrunners, silnylon packs and I know how to count to 3 or 4...the minimum number of various medicines or sheets of toilet paper. After much thought, I have decided this philosophy is not for me. I value safety and comfort more than light. This is not to say I do not borrow liberally from this type of hiking.

The biggest problem is when things go sideways. They neither have the skills, gear or clothing to cope with the situation. I see it in all four seasons.

I've never seen such a tangential dichotomy... From specifics of prehistoric podiatry to the quasi-meta topic of UL adventuring.

I have been treated to quite the tour!

"It was my choice too for most trip until I made the decision to carry it all the time so I could accurately give coordinates to SAR or other first responders just in case. "

Sounds to me like a serious deficiency in map reading knowledge.
Most experts I know can get you within 100 feet. Better take some classes, and shore up this deficiency.

I don't believe in trying to make up in deficient basic knowledge with technology. You'll get burned by a dead battery.

You keep harping on first aid kits. MY experience is that people have first aid kits, but are deficient in knowledge of how to use them. People don't get training. For someone like yourself, out on trails in semi-official capacities, who has repeated first aid incidents, I'd consider Wilderness EMT the lowest level of training. Where did you get your certification? Is it current?
If not, why do you go out with this deficiency in preparation?

But a much better way of approaching this is the following: "judge not, lest ye be judged". Lotta uninformed judgement coming from you, WB. This philosophy does NOT negate your experience, which is certainly valid, but it does speak against smearing every person you've never met.

Your memory may not be long enough, but I distinctly remember under-prepared and under-geared people LONG before there was ever an ultralight movement.

Both Bob R. and Steve C. are Light(even UL at times) trekkers for the valid reasons of aging joints (sorry guys). They want to remain active for as long as possible, so taking the weight off the joints is the one area of relief that makes a difference.

I would never, never place either of them in any sort bad light. In fact, I have learned so many useful tips from them about streamlining my outdoor experience. One of those tips was that a stove is actually optional in summer (sorry Jim the Stovie) so that on short trips, I now actually bring "cold" meals, and leave home the stove, utensils, & cooking gear.

In Winter, the stove is an essential tool of survival in the mountains (to melt snow for water) so I would never leave it home.

There. I have now brought stoves into this crazy thread!

Ah, the hiking boot vs. trail runner debates, or should I say wars? Each side makes its case, and then things slowly deteriorate into fighting and bloodshed. Just like the never-ending religious struggles between Christianity vs. Muslins, Tea Party nutjobs vs. the Rest-of-Us, etc. It's the nature of our species. Give us a cause/belief, any cause/belief, and some of us will try to kill the other over it. The contentiousness in the world today reminds me of the movie "Ghostbusters" where a type of energy enveloped NYC, causing everyone to argue/be disagreeable with everyone else.

On the "what to wear on my feet" topic - I've climbed Mt Lassen several times. It's a relatively easy, short dayhike, with alot of 'bang for the buck'. For those familiar with it, you know that not far from the actual summit the ground levels out, and enters a volcanic field of rather nasty, sharp, rubble as it gains the last bit of elevation. It's fresh - the last eruption was in the early 1900's and has weathered little. A slip/fall is going to draw blood or worse. In any case - one day I'm sitting on the summit (on a small pad) when a woman and her 3 teenage children appear, all in good spirits and quite animated. After making sure the kids all have food to munch on, the mom starts visiting with me and the other hikers. I couldn't help but notice that she and her children were barefoot, and no one was the worse for wear. As offhandedly as I could I commented on that, and she laughed, saying she had been drawn to a lifestyle many years ago, pre-motherhood, and hadn't worn shoes in many years, and had raised her children the same way. Said both she and her kids loved going barefoot, and lived at lower elevation nearby, the winters were mild and they never needed shoes/boots due to the cold. I've seen the occasional barefoot hiker over the years, but never on such sharp, volcanic rock.

As for stoves - I never carry a stove on 3-season dayhikes or short backpacks. I carry food which doesn't require heat. When doing a snow/glacier climb requiring an overnight (or two) I do carry a stove to melt snow/ice for water. As soon as there's liquid in the pan, it's filtered and more snow added. The combined weight of filter, stove and enough fuel to melt is less than a stove and enough fuel to bring the water to a boil. This year I noticed the snow rangers on Shasta use the same method. Much more efficient in terms of weight.

Although not properly defined as UL, one of the most famous and successful mountaineering minimalist pioneers was Reinhold Messner. Compared to other similarly skilled mountaineers of his day, Messner was (in)famous for carrying a significantly lighter load into a climb than most. In the Himalaya that meant no oxygen for any of the 8000-meter peaks he successfully conquered (that being all of them), as well as a bare minimum of climbing pro and other gear. He only rarely utilized Sherpa and porter aid during his career. Light and fast was his mantra, and it confounded most of the other experienced Himalayan expedition climbers of the time, many of whom were obsessively gear- and support-focused. Messner also eschewed the ponderous and traditional acclimation rotation in favor of going high extremely fast - to the tune of 1000 meters an hour at his peak conditioning. He would acclimate to 5500 meters then bolt for an 8000-meter summit. He established a number of speed-ascent records in his day, not the least of which was a new route up Everest. He also achieved what many consider to be the only true solo climb of Everest.

However, others who've attempted to imitate Messner's techniques and style have not been as successful, often paying with either body parts or their lives. They didn't have his skill, they didn't have his conditioning, they didn't have his physiology, and they didn't have his drive.

The point being, one size doesn't fit all, which applies abundantly to UL hiking. Sure, we all want virtually no weight on our backs (or feet) as we trudge uphill in thin air. The trick is knowing what level of minimalism is right for you, given expected conditions. Unfortunately, many find out the hard way that they've out-kicked their coverage.

Ken,

I know where I am on trails. I have an altimeter, USGS 7.5' quads and know how to triangulate position. I can put where I am on a map in about 10 seconds most of the time without the use of GPS. I just find it easier if I can give air assets long/lat and ground personnel UTM in a timely manner. You assume way too much.

Dead battery cannard, eh. My skills are good enough without the use of technology but aren't you suppose to carry spares in your pack?

The government paid a lot of money to train me in a bit more than first aid back when the only color in my closet was green. Again, you assume. My Red Cross first aid certification is current.

Life is about judgments, we make them all the time. I am sure you do in your practice. I don't mind being judged, I judge myself all the time. Smearing every person I have never met...nice strawman there. I think I said most of the people I have given assistance to have a UL/Light philosophy. That is empirical...I also used YMMV in a post.

I did not say those have heavy do not go out unprepared or underprepared, just my experience. Michelle Yu had 40 pounds of rocks but no crampons in her pack when she walked off the backside of Mt. Baldy a few years ago in a white out. It is my judgment she was unprepared for conditions expected that day.

Nice summary, Bulldog.

You are perfectly reasonably able to form judgements about specific people that you have seen, or incidents reported.

However, when you smear (and yes, I mean that specific word) people you have never met, that is not reasonable.

You are saying that there is no such thing as an ultralight backpacker who is prepared. BS. Not only that, but you know many in this community.

As for me "assuming too much"---that is EXACTLY my point....look how you object when OTHERS assume about you. Unless you consider yourself king of the trail, you are subject to exactly the same assumption process that you direct against others.

See how you move into defensive mode....and you can actually defend yourself. When you make your assumptive posts directed at any and all ultralighters, they cannot defend themselves.

And as for your first aid certification, as I said, it is inadequate, and you are not up to date on advanced skills. You are expired. I'll bet you don't like the sound of that criticism. If that is the case, consider how you sound to others when you smear them when you've never seen them on a trail.

So, how does everybody feel about wearing boots vs. trailrunners?

I like boots.

To quote an old British Army song: "...boots, boots, boots, marching up and down again, boots, boots, boots."

Ken,

You have made a lot of statement but have provided no examples.

Hmmm...I guess that could be construed as a smear, huh Ken?

Where should I send the straw?

Salty,

It all depends on what I am doing and where.

I own three types of footwear...soon to replace low trailshoes with trailrunners.

Off trail...mid weight backpacking boots

trails...distance and type of trail determine footwear.

Winter...mountaineering boots.

Geeze, guys, I was KIDDING!!! Enough already!