A common debate amongst hiker nowadays is what type of footwear to take. The traditional boot still has a lot of support, but there are growing factions championing lighter options. The main competition for the trusty boot are trail runners. These are much lighter, less durable, and More breathable but often not waterproof. They also have less ankle support, although that varies from boot to boot as well. Some people go even further and argue for less sturdy shoes or even barefoot(!), but I've no experience with that so I won't talk about it.
The main arguments for trail runners are generally about weight. They are much, much lighter than boots. And there's the saying that a pound on your feet is worth two on your back. The argument goes that these lighter shoes are thus easier to hike in because of the weight but also how breathable they are. There's a far smaller chance of one's feet over heating. The lack of support and low durability are also sometimes presented as advantages. They don't need to be broken in as much as boots, if at all, and help develop strong ankles. I'm a little sceptical about that last part, but not needing to be broken in is definitely a plus - especially as they're likely to be replaced more often. Trail runners will be replaced maybe twice as often as boots. As to how waterproof they aren't, people often say that the feet are going to get wet anyway - especially if rivers needed to be waded. I'm not entirely convinced by that, especially here in Britain. I've found every pair I've owned to be very comfortable, with no downside for short hikes. But I wouldn't want to take them for more than a couple of days.
Boots are the traditional mainstay of hikers. Sometimes big and clunky, sometimes less so, they provide excellent grip and support, with waterproof options and will last a while. I love mine, and I think they're very comfortable as is. I'm sure everyone already knows the benefits of boots, and I personally don't see a need to swap them for something else.
No comments:
Post a Comment