I have been doing some day hiking with just some regular cross training shoes. I have been increasing the amount of gear I carry every time I go out. My goal is to complete a 6-7 day hike on the Foothills Trail in SC. Looking to invest in a good pair of shoes. Trying to determine the best option: low cut shoes or mid to high top boots?

Shoes are about as personal a choice of gear as there is. First and foremost is comfort, after that comes function, durability, type of boot and style.

So, what you want to evaluate is how and where you'll be hiking. If you're going to be mostly on trails that are pretty well maintained then light weight low top trail runners might be a great choice for you.

Personally, I don't like those, but a lot of hikers do. The reason I don't like them is because the trails I hike on are not smooth or well maintained, and I mostly hike off trail in the thick of hardwood forests. Low tops get too much debris in them and I like the ankle protection I get from mid-tops when I slip and/or fall.

Here's some advice; Try on every shoe at several stores before you make your purchase. You'll be surprised at the high price of some of the shoes you really don't find comfortable.

Bring the same socks you'll be hiking in. If you'll be hiking in the cold and want to double up your socks, do that when you try the shoes on.

You might want to buy a quality pair of aftermarket insoles first, and remove the ones the come with the shoes you're looking at and try them with your aftermarket insoles. You might find a less expensive shoe that works just great with your quality insoles. Lots of the members here say " Superfeet " are good insoles. I haven't bought a pair yet, but I'd be good with relying on their advice for that.

HI
IF I read your post right, you are doing "some day hiking" and you want to do a 6-7 day "backpack" and you want to know what kind of foot gear to buy. Is that right?

Some will argue but traditionally a backpacking boot is a bit heavier [than day hiking footgear], and ankle high and is intended to offer various kinds of protection to your ankles. I don't like to be off pavement in trailrunners.

Have you any camping experience?

Jim

The only "ankle protection" you'll get would mean a full boot.

Mid or low cut, take your pick - they are all about the same in terms of durability. What is most important is fit. That's individual and personal, and depends on your foot, not anything anyone can tell you about brand. Try on a bunch and see how they feel - ideally with the good pair of wool or synthetic socks you're going to hike in.

You may find it easier to do a 5-6 day backpack after you have tried a 2 day/1 night - give everything a shakedown trip. Including the shoes. If they hurt after two days of hiking, 5 days will be hell. It's not worth it.

Don't listen to wags who think trailrunners don't work - they have worked far better for me off trail and on, through all kinds of terrain, than any boot.

I agree that low cut hiking shoes (sturdy trail runners or a light hiking shoe) work fine for a lot of people. I do mostly off trail -lots of rock hopping and use low cut shoes. I wear gaiters to keep debris out of my shoes. There are both low and high gaiters - some for snow and some designed specifically for dirt - some trail running shoes come with a built in gaiter. There are different types of soles- generally hard rubber lasts longer and softer rubber is stickier (good if on lots of rocks). Some have aggressive treads (good for snow), and some a very mellow tread (good for trails). Some soles stick better on slick rocks. Some treads do better in mud.

And when we say "fit" that usually means plenty of toe room. Every shoe has a slightly different toe shape. If you have stubby square toes Keens and Merrell are good brands. If you have narrow long big toe, very tapered other toes, you may find a European shoe fits better. I do think trail running shoes are more likely to offer more specifically designed shoes for specific type of feet (high arch/ low arch/ pronators, etc).

There are reasons, however, to use a boot. If you are a really big guy and plan on carrying a really heavy load, a boot may work better. If you plan on going through lots of snow (winter hiking) a boot may be more appropriate. If you plan on using micro-spikes or crampons because of hiking on ice, then a stiffer boot is more comfortable for all day use of crampons which strap on. My husband swears by boots. He has damaged ankles from previous injuries and says the high top boot keeps his ankle from folding on him. I am not sure I agree, but like others say, get what fits and works for you, and aim for the lightest that works for you. Light hikers and trial runners do not last as long as leather boots. But they are more comfortable from the beginning. Boots need to be broken in. My preference is to buy light hikers and simply replace them every year. When I was young and poor, I used sturdy boots and had them re-soled many times to save money. I am not sure you can even find a boot that can be re-soled anymore, let alone a cobbler who knows how to do this!

Bottom line. I would stick with the trail runners and if they do not work, then step up to a light hiker, and if that does not work, go for a beefier hiker or mid top and last resort, go to a boot.

Lori, why would you say that?

Most all our backpacking gear choices are based on location and conditions. Shoes are one of those.

Trail runners were designed for backpacking in the summer in the Sierras and they work great for that. Use them in a lush deciduous mountain forest and they're really not so good.

One of the biggest differences in style of gear as a result of location I can think of is that the recommended attire for hiking in the Ozark Mountains in the summer is wearing long pants with your pant legs tucked into your hightop boots. There are good reasons for that. One can chose not to listen to the locals but I'd advise against that no matter where you are or where you came from.

The larger point here is that all gear is location and conditions based. Shoes are no exception. If you're mostly hiking in the Ozarks from mid-autumn to early spring trailrunners are not a good choice, and it's always a bad choice to go backpacking here in the summer no matter what shoes you're wearing.

We can choose both the location and the conditions. Our gear should work for those choices.

Because it's true. Until you know when, where, and how the gear is to be used, there is nothing - absolutely nothing - out of bounds.

Trail runners "work" for thousands of people each season. I've seen them "work" for snowshoers. You have to decide what "works" for you. Mr. Snowshoes didn't care about wet feet - he wore shorts, too. Well - that wouldn't "work" for me, since I like being safer than that. But it's not my place to put the screws to him to get him to conform. It's his choice.

Trail runners were NOT made to be used "in the Sierra" - people have used them lots of other places. I use them all over the place. All over the coastal ranges, in the desert, even some beach hiking.

It does no one any good to issue blanket statements anywhere, any time.

OP has his sights on one trip. i doubt he would start with snow, floods, scree or gnarly mountaineering. he would likely be fine starting with shoes that fit and do not blister - when the bug bites hard he will likely have a shoe and boot and pack for every occasion. or, perhaps, he will decide to stick to day hiking, which won't require anything special. some peak baggers who go 35+ miles (ones i have talked to) use trail runners or cheap sneakers....
it depends on what works for the person.

boots only work for me on low miles, no climbing trips. last long trip with boots (ones that fit me, no less) i hobbled and limped half the miles in tears. i will never listen to people who try to tell me to wear boots backpacking because i prefer comfort and unbruised ankles to pain and tears.

I used trail runners for two years until I wore it out. I even wore it in the snow with gaiter. With that said, I bought pair of mid-ankle Salomon. They are very lightweight (as light as my previous trail runner or lighter.) and was marked 50% off otherwise I would have stuck with trail runners. I haven't used it in the backcountry yet, but it will get some trail use October 4th weekend.

That's a blanket statement.



That was kind of my point...

I've seen hikers wearing oxfords and they said they work too, but most everyone I've seen or heard of that tried to do the Ozark Highlands Trail in trailrunners came off busted up before their first week was over. You gack your ankles slipping on the loose chert that's strewn about everywhere here and you'll find the protection even mid-tops offer appealing pretty quickly.



Well hell, then let's suggest they go barefoot. (You know, like that guy in "Northern Exposure")

I know from experience that there are places (here is one of them) where trailrunners are not a good choice.

And I have to differ with you on the intended market those trailrunner shoes are designed to target. It is most certainly the "Backpacker Magazine's Yosemite demographic". Those shoes were designed for everyone that wants to be like you and WD. It should come as no surprise at all to either of you that this fact exists.

You have to look at "Tractor Supply" and "Bass Pro" to see what's designed for use here. "Mossy Oak" is big here. People dual purpose their hunting clothes with backpacking because a lot of it works better here, but there is nothing designed specifically for backpacking use here. There is no market for it, and markets are what steer design.

This leaves me with having a hodgepodge of gear because most hunting gear is not lightweight by design. So, I basically have to choose from gear made for trips out west or gear made for deer hunters.

The best hiking shoes I've ever had for here was a pair of snowmobile boots designed by Yamaha. They quit making them the year I found them. That was about 20 years ago

Bill, I've hiked in trailrunners in western Oregon and Washington (very lush, very wet), in eastern Oregon (dry, dusty and rocky), in Wyoming (ditto, but more rocks) and in Ohio (just short day hikes during my week there). I've used them on and off trail. I have never worn boots since I switched. The trail runners are so much more comfortable and, even more important, have much more stable footbeds. While I was forever turning my ankles in hiking boots, I've never done it in the trail runners (I have tried to do it deliberately and failed). I also have never had a blister since I switched, although I think that's more due to using shoes without Goretex liners. BTW, it's impossible to find women's hiking boots without Goretex liners, which was the reason I initially switched.

After the boots sat in my closet for several years, they finally went to Goodwill. I will never wear boots again!

If it's a question of keeping dirt/rocks/trash out of the shoes or keeping ticks outside of clothing, a pair of low gaiters works just fine.

By the way, WD does cross-country travel and mountaineering in Wyoming's Wind Rivers in her low shoes. Lots of talus and scree there!

One thing we do all agree on here is that the most important elements of footwear are fit, fit and fit!

Bill, I think I took away a slightly different meaning from Lori's post than you might have. I read it as the generic warning that we've all given to newcomers: Don't let anyone give you an absolute rule about any aspect of backpacking, be it gear or technique. (Well, OK, maybe "don't let anyone give you an absolute rule..." and "don't burn the place down" might be exceptions.)

I didn't think she was trying to say that trailrunners always work, and that anyone who says differently is wrong (nor do I think she was trying to imply you were a "wag." When I think of "wag," I always think of Cliff Jacobsen, who tends to tell you you're wrong unless you're doing it the way he recommends in his books.) To me, a "wag" is someone who can only feel big by making other people feel small - definitely not applicable to you.

You said it better than most when you pointed out that all advice is locale-specific. I'm east of you, but generally similar conditions. Maybe our trails are a bit tamer (I don't know, since I've never hiked in your neck of the woods), but we still qualify as "lush" and "wet." Having said that, I'm living proof that shorts and trail shoes work. I'm also in a minority; most folks around here like a light-hiker boot, and long pants. I'm also in a minority of a minority: most of us who do hike in trail shoes wear either long pants, or shorts and low gaiters - for just the reason you describe - too much crud gets into the low-top shoes. I don't use gaiters; for some reason, I've never had a huge problem with crud in the shoes. But that's just me; if asked for advice, I'd tell the person that it works for me, that they should consider giving it a try, but in the end to go with what fits, what's comfortable, and what they like better.

Bill took away the opposite meaning of my post.

WE overthink things and specialize, and nitpick, and endlessly debate gear.

Newbies need to get out and do their newbie thing with basic gear and decide if they are going to turn into overthinking gear geeks.

Nothing always works. Which is another blanket statement. But it's about the only one that applies.

Trail runners work very well for lots of people - for lots of reasons. Sometimes because they do not hike enough to make them not work. Many of us are exceeding that "couple times a year" the majority of backpackers seem to get. So the standard advice we give is when you find the trailrunner that works, buy several pairs - they get discontinued. That's not advice you give someone who rarely hikes, or even to a newbie - it doesn't apply if you aren't going to wear them out in your lifetime.

Boots don't work for me - 90% of the time. Enough that a pair of boots lasts me forever, and a pair of trail runners less than a year - when you're putting 20 - 500 miles per month on them, they just aren't going to last much longer than that.

However, even I put on boots once in a while - not because I want to, but because it's safer than what I wanted to wear. I thought I would use the boots that worked for 200 miles on a long trip - I should have worn the trail runners that were more comfortable, because the boots made that minor injury into an excruciating marathon of pain. The trail runners with the same injury were merely an ongoing ache.

I've hiked recently with someone who openly mocked the gear choices of everyone else in the group - pointlessly. Just because none of us were "ultralight" enough. Not a one of us deserves to be nitpicked against our will.

And I used to think like you. Until myself and most of the SAR team found that trail runners did just fine most of the time, until we got out ice axes.

The demographics aren't the point. People use trail runners for a lot more than you think they do, regardless of how you or anyone else thinks they were intended to be used.

They are a good choice because they are good for my feet - terrain is pretty much beside the point. I also don't do waterproof as that is pointless - I don't blister when wet, if I have properly fitting shoes, as I have demonstrated before. As long as I have dry socks to change into by the end of the day that doesn't even matter.

Gaiters and the right pants mitigate a lot of other ills one could claim trail runners are "bad" for.

The end of boots for me came when my old Terray's (5 pound mountaineering boots) broke down in the ankle area and severely damaged my ankles - crippled me for more than a month and my ankles have never since then been able to stand anything touching them. I then went to tennis shoes! I replaced the insoles with superfeet. I even did a 12-day trip over cross-country passes, put crampons on the tennis shoes, wore them on snow! Not ideal but they "worked". Best shoes I have had were Merrell "Radlands", unfortunately now discontinued. I went to light hikers for their much more aggressive tread. Trail runners (the people) are getting into more serious terrain and even off trail. To meet this demand trail running shoes have become more suitable for off-trail work. I really am going to look into switching to trail running shoes. If it were not for low cut shoes, I would not even be backpacking today. I agree that one DOES have to watch out and more purposefully place feet when using low cut shoes in talus and bushwhacking. When I could wear boots, I would just bash through. For me, there really is not a choice.

For the OP, also try insoles like Superfeet and different socks- I prefer medium weight Smartwool socks. I wear only one pair of socks, but some people have better luck with a thin liner sock and medium weight wool over-sock.

Your story just reminded me of "Granny" Gatewood, from Ohio, who began the first of several AT thru-hikes when she was in her 60s or 70s, and wore nothing but sneakers - Keds Red Ball Jets, if I remember correctly - on at least one of those hikes.

I appreciate the testaments to where others have taken their trail runners, but I honesty think that is a reflection on their skill and not the shoe's.

The reasons Ozarkers wear long denim pants and hightop boots has to do in large part with protection from ticks, chiggers, branches, bramble, and poison ivy. In addition to those would be protection from rocks during slips and falls, debris getting into the shoes, warmth, ankle support and protection, and protection from snake bites. Getting wet has little to do with it.



Well, first I have to ask about what happened when you got out your axes?!!

Then I'll offer that if your SAR team uses trail runners it's because they work well out west, and that's because those are the conditions trail runners were specifically designed to work in, but they're still a poor choice here.

To confirm that I looked it up. The below is from an Ozarks SAR introduction course brochure:

"Since you will be tromping out in the woods in rough Arkansas terrain both in daylight and nighttime, dry &/or wet conditions, please ensure that you wear sturdy hiking boots with adequate traction AND ankle support. Tennis shoes will not be acceptable footwear during the Mock Search on the second weekend. Adequate footwear is a safety concern for this activity, so please be prepared prior to the 2nd weekend. Adequate footwear should also be worn during the navigation exercise Sunday afternoon of the first weekend." (source)

"Tennis Shoes" is a generic term used here and Trail runners are covered under it, so they're actually a choice SAR teams here consider a "safety concern".

That doesn't surprise me at all, but it surprises a lot of tourists who come here to hike and backpack and they're probably the ones local SAR members carry off the trails most here, hence their concern.

WD offers a "Work your way up" from trail runners to boots approach that makes a lot of sense. I might instead offer that beginners start in the middle with lightweight hiker mid-tops and work their way in the direction that feels right for them after that.

Unless you can't stand them. Some people can't stand mid-tops. My wife is one of them. She hates them.

Interesting debate-
Shoes/boots - my criteria would be fit/comfort and stability followed by weight. Ill fitting footwear is most likely going to be very uncomfortable. Unstable footwear boarders on disaster and in my new found wisdom the lighter the better. I just purged my full leather boots for a pair of light weight mids. Personally I would love to wear a pair of house slippers if I could get away with it. I went with mids because I feel more stable in them. Of course I am bilateral vestibularly challenged ie -my inner ears are shot and I have about as much balance as a two legged bar stool . After trying both low cuts and mids I feel more secure in the mids. Its all about you and your equipment. It is sometimes expensive to experiment but without individual trial and error we are just guessing. No one can possibly tell another, other than generalities how a certain piece of gear will satisfy your needs. There are so many exceptions to the rule, such as my situation that blanket statements will bite us all in the butt time after time.

Good advise from all those who advise a shake down.

jimmyb

I wore a pair of high-top Keds on my 1954 hike of the John Muir Trail. They worked well even though the trail was much rougher then than now. They sure got smelly though. I started using running shoes on climbing approach hikes including x-country in the North Cascades in the 1970's: I carried my boots on my pack. The Cascades are wet and rough but I never felt the need of boots until we reached snow. Wet feet? Sure, but my feet got wet in boots too.

Well, SAR teams here in California warn against it too. But as volunteers we gear up in whatever works for us, other than the mandated uniform.

There's a SAR team that tells people not to worry about giardia - not my SAR team! lots of us have been treated for it.

Mileage varies a lot with every little nuance of backpacking. Were I to hike anywhere else in the USA I would have trail runners - a couple of pairs - plus a pair of boots.

What happens when the ice axe comes out? The boots come out, you know, the ones that work with big ice crampons? Remember, it does matter what you're doing.

However, a beginner doesn't know what ice gear is. Trail shoes work. (WD didn't suggest that path from light hikers to specialized gear - I did.)

Molehill > mountain here. It's not that complicated.

SKILL? I'm a clumsy oaf - spraining my ankles in full boots where thousands of others claim they need them for "support"? My feet move and so do my ankles, so I set them free. That's my "skill." Knowing how to listen to my body instead of a thousand conventional voices crying out in sanity. My feet trapped in Goretex boots rebelled - endless sore ankles and foot fungus that ended with raw feet, layers of skin sloughing off, toenails lost. For those with foot issues, it pays to take care in what you buy.

Then there are guys like this older fella who canyoneers, hikes and climbs in his old Big 5 cheapie off brand hikers - you can see his socks through the big holes in the sides of them. "I think it might be time to replace them," he says. If I hiked like that I would get a huge stick stuck in my foot. Oh yeah - I tried sandals, like this other guy swears by, due to the fungus thing - what a mess. Wasted all my energy shaking rocks out and trying to avoid getting stabbed in the foot.

And yes, there are indeed barefoot backpackers. And the barefoot shoe craze - a friend uses the flimsiest looking barefoot shoes with a full backpack. I can't do that either.

I wear trail running shoes on and off trail in the Missouri and Arkansas Ozarks. I hate having high-tops rubbing against my side ankle bone. Every once in a while I hit the side of my ankle on a rock, but it's better than constant rubbing on my ankle. I have mostly worn New Balance trail runners. They are not much different than road running shoes other than deeper tread.

I've seen signs and brochures recommending boots for various trails, and I ignore them. A lot of the trails here are very rocky, so I understand why conventional wisdom says to wear boots, but it's really not necessary just because of rocks and uneven tread.

The idea that trail runners only work "out west" is just not true. The farthest "out west" I have hiked is South Dakota's Black Hills and Big Bend National Park in Texas. I didn't find conditions there much different than Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee or Kentucky. I wore the same type of shoes and they worked fine.

I didn't say trail runners only work out west. I said they were designed for hiking out west. I said they work good for a lot of activities and a lot of hikers use them.

My point has never been that trail runners won't work. My point has been that there may be better choices that are dependent up location and conditions.

One of the most common complaints about boots seems to be from people that don't like anything rubbing on their ankles. I don't get bothered by that. In fact, it's quite the opposite for me, I don't like my ankles exposed when I'm hiking or working.

It's the broader concept that there is a one shoe fits all conditions and there's no need of looking further I find odd. Not the idea that one can make due with the shoe they have, but the idea that there isn't one better suited for specific hiking conditions or that there's no need for one better. That seems especially odd considering all the shoe choices out there.

Even in trail runners there are some better on rocks and others better on dirt and mud, but the notion that there is no place where a mid or high top boot is a better choice than a trail runner feels very narrow to me. I look for a better shoe every time I go and I've tried on dozens of trail runners in the process just to feel the fit.

As for trails, backpacking on trails in the Sierras in the summer is like being in heaven in comparison to here. It's really that good. I won't even backpack here in the summer, it's really that bad.

I've hiked a lot out west of the Rockies and in quite a few places around the mid-west including the Black Hills. Parts of Kentucky are pretty close to what we have here, so is southern IL. But the Ozark Mountains region is quite unique in its topography and flora. Generally speaking the trails out west are just easier to walk on.

Anyway, it's pretty easy for me to say that the Ozarks have some of the toughest hiking trails anywhere I've been. I don't know and have never met anyone who says they hike 20 miles a day on our trails. I know of quite a few people that have come off our Ozark trails banged up from trying to do 15 or more miles a day because that's what they did on the AT or PCT or some other trail somewhere.

Shoot, just last year there was a guy from Chicago who posted here saying him and his son were going to do 15 miles a day on a 60 mile trip near where you live Slowfoot. If you recall I advised that guy to slow it down and he got perturbed with me for that. We never heard from him again though, did we? And as I recall that week was pretty cool and calm out. Weather wise, it couldn't have been better for him here.

Slowfoot, you should plan a trip out west and do some of those trails in the Sierras. You would be in heaven. I'm not kidding, it's that good out there, and hey, you already have the perfect shoes for them

A few years ago, I sprained my ankle playing softball. A week later, I wanted to take my family hiking. I decided to use my heavy duty waffle stompers with "ankle support". All that showed me was that boots don't give support. If you need ankle support, stop playing around and use an ankle brace.

It's not that I don't like my ankles rubbed. It's that I don't like them in constant PAIN.

I'm on trail sometimes...

A few years (decade(s)?) back one of the big shoe companies (Nike?) did a study on basketball shoes and ankle injuries. They concluded that players wearing hi-tops did get less injuries, not because hi-top shoes provided significantly more structural support (they don't), but surmised the hi-tops provide feedback through the nerves in the ankle to the brain, which reacted with signals to the muscles to adjust accordingly, and that's what helps reduce injuries to the ankles.

My own experience is that hiking is what will strengthen ankles more than anything else. So, if your ankles are weak then wearing hi-tops might indeed help prevent injury if you don't overdo it.

I've never experienced pain from wearing mid or hi-top boots, but judging from the scraps on the side of my Merrell's I've probably avoided some. I have to admit to falling a lot when I bushwhack. The forest floor has a thick carpet of leaves covering a zillion loose rocks and pebbles and they do put me on my tail every time I hike.

Lori, I recall hearing about the "Barefoot Hiking" fade a few years ago. I think that really is an effect of the "Northern Exposure" TV show. I will never quite understand why people are so easily bent by that stuff, but I know how. Living in Hollywood for a bit really helped give me perspective on movies and TV. They love inventing trends.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your comments as saying that trail runners are not at all suitable for the Ozarks. I do think people should try different shoes out for themselves and see what they prefer. Not everyone likes the same thing for the same conditions. Trail runners do work here for me and others.



I don't disagree with this at all, nothing works for all conditions or every person. I don't plan to ever go back to high-top boots, but I do wear different shoes in cold weather that have thicker and stiffer soles. That is mostly because that's what I could find that fit and was waterproof, but they work fine for me also. (I have unnaturally cold feet so that's why I like waterproof shoes in winter; warmth more than waterproof-ness.)



I have wide feet, so I have to go with what fits and not worry too much about the tread. Since I'm usually on a variety of surfaces it would be hard to find the ideal tread anyway. For the conditions I go out in, I would probably never wear boots. If there is more than a couple inches of snow on the ground, then I am usually not backpacking either because of road conditions or because it's too cold. I can't think of any cases other than snow where I would want to wear boots.



I have backpacked here in the summer, although I do understand what you are saying. Labor Day weekend last year we were bush-whacking up Big Bluff at the Buffalo River. Not exactly recommended at that time of year, but I still had fun anyway. That's the only time I can think of in the last few years, though, so most of the time we do let sanity prevail in the summer.



As already mentioned, I have no experience with the real west, but I do find everywhere I've been similar in terms of trails. The vegetation is different at times -- evergreens in SD, rhododendren in TN, etc. But that doesn't really have any impact on footwear.



People have definitely done it. I've read articles on Backpacking Light from people who have hiked 20 mile days on both the Ozark Trail and Ozark Highlands Trail. (It might have been the same person.) I have no idea how many people do it, but it's definitely been done. I just can't walk fast enough to do that even if I wanted to. I did do a 14 mile day on the Ouachita Trail once, and that was about my limit.




It's not likely to happen soon since my husband can't take off more than a week at a time, and doesn't want to fly. I have to stick to places within driving distance for now, and will probably still never get to everywhere I want to go just in Arkansas. And I like that the times I've been on "crowded" trails around here that means I saw 3 or 4 groups of people backpacking instead of 0. I've heard that there are places like that in the west too, but they would probably not be where I would be able to go when trying to plan a trip from 2000 miles away.