100 Mile Wilderness: Shoe selection

You could try La Sportiva Helios. They give more protection than minimalist shoes, but are extremely light, and maintain the nimble agile feeling that I think you're looking for. Also, in the men's shoes at least, my feet fit the usual Merrell last and the Helios well. My feet have a normal heel, but I need a fairly wide and spacious toe box.

There is the regular Helios, and new this year the Helios SR. Helios has 4mm drop, Helios SR 2mm drop. They are made on the same basic last, but the SR has very slightly less volume in the forefoot, more of a "glove-y" racing type feel. The SR also has a slightly more substantial rock plate, and more grippy soles (I only just got my SRs, so I don't yet know if there's a tradeoff in durability). Both drain well.

If you want some much more substantial protection for scrambling, the La Sportiva Ultra Raptor is also made on the same last.

Thanks, Ralph!

I'm definitely going to check them out. It looks like La Sportiva doesn't make a Helios SR yet for Women. But the SR sounds more like what I am looking for. I'm not above wearing a man's shoe ;-), so I will try them both if I can find them.

So far, I've struck out finding a store that carries the Helios in either men's or women's in Phoenix… :-(

Why not consider a heavy shoe? 100 miles, give or take, in 10 days is very low miles. The extra weight won't matter much.

I've never seem them in any store, to be honest. Online, the SR's aren't on sale anywhere specifically, as new for 2015, but a few of the big places that have 20% coupons available now do carry them – eg Backcountry. They tend to have limited stock, though. Alternatively, runningwarehouse.com always have good inventory, free shipping BOTH ways, and coupon code RUNBLOG10 gets you 10% off. It costs nothing to order multiple sizes and return what you don't want.

If you haven't worn La Sportiva shoes before, note that their nominal sizing is ridiculously small. I've no idea why. I take a full US size larger in their shoes than any other brand. But once you figure out the right nominal size, it makes no difference. For me, their size 12 fits just like size 11 in any other brand. A bit odd, I'm not sure if they really think everyone should be wearing super-tight shoes.

Wow, Ralph! The runningwarehouse.com site is incredible! Thank you so much for your help and for turning me on to that site.

LOVE all of the resources they have (pronation videos, "drop" explanations, etc.). Plus the interactive tool they have for sizing a shoe is awesome!

> (pronation videos, "drop" explanations, etc.).
Just be aware that most of that stuff is either rubbish or possibly damaging to your feet (imho). Old Nike marketing spin, discredited.

Foot sizing – use a Brannock Device and find out your foot WIDTH. Never buy a shoe which is smaller/narrower.

Cheers

I don't think the hundred mile wilderness calls for specialized shoes. You will get wet feet They will probably stay wet pretty long. The hundred mile had its share of sharp rocks on the trail but nothing too unusual. There is a little bit of scrambling. I wrote a pair of Inov 8 trail runners and they seemed prefect.
Ten days seems like a long time for that trip. I would recommend adding on the rest of the AT to Katahdin if I were doing the hundred mile.

Thanks, Ben! My hiking partner hasn't done a trip like this before so we're being conservative.

Roger, do you have links to article discrediting the pronation thing? I'd like to read them. I don't know much about it.

"Foot sizing – use a Brannock Device and find out your foot WIDTH. Never buy a shoe which is smaller/narrower."

That would work if shoes companies actually based their sizing and width off of the brannock device. Doesn't seem to be the case.
I sell hiking shoes a bit at the store I work at and I usually bring out a size up and a size down in addition to the size the customer suggested, even if their foot gets measured.

Sharon, if you normally hike in your pace gloves then you should just bring those. Thin soled minimalist shoes are very stable with heavy loads. You are right there connected to the ground. The problem is with low cut, thick soled shoes and heavy packs, you end up on top of a platform with a heavy load to knock you off balance.

If you are set on minimalist shoes, you should push yourself and condition your feet. Saying that a certain trail is too rough for minimalist shoes is a stupid statement, everyone is different with tougher or weaker foot muscles.

I exclusively wear minimalist shoes and if you like them, then keep using them! 10 miles per day isn't that much too worry about.

If you find that you want more protection when you get back from the trip, look at the merrel bare access trail. Zero drop but more cushion. Also the new balance minimus trail shoe has a little more cushion that then pace glove, a little more forgiving on rocks, but still very minimal with lots of ground feel.

Three posts up. We did the HMW in 5 days sobo off the couch last year in light trail runners.

I prefer trail runners in most all trails that are snow free. I used a pair of New Balance 810 (or 910) in 2003 to hike this in 3 days. Trail runners vs boots give you a lighter feeling on your feet. But everyone is different, so use what works for you. Maybe a shake down hike is in order for a day / overnighter, and bring 2 sets of footwear that you have narrowed it down to. This won't be light, but effective considering your trip. 10 miles a day can be done in most any footwear, so use what you like, use what you have, and use what fits good. Have a good hike out there-

Hi Sharon

> do you have links to article discrediting the pronation thing? I'd like to read
> them. I don't know much about it.
Not off the top of my head. My FAQ web site seems to have gone off the air at the moment…

Nike marketing introduced three really bad concepts which have been thoroughly discredited by the medical fraternity, experienced sports coaches, and many, many experienced walkers. They are:
Pronation Control
Arch Support
Gel Soles

I emphasise: none of these ideas have ever had any refereed publications to support them, but there have been quite a few (ie MANY) criticisms of them from MANY experienced and qualified people.

Pronation Control: this attempts to alter your basic bio-mechanics. Unless you have a serious injury to your ankle or foot which is causing big medical problems, using 'pronation control' to alter how your body wants to move is just plain stupid. It CAUSES medical problems.

Arch Support: this weird idea says you have to 'support' the arch of your foot. A few hundred thousand years of human evolution has happily gone along without arch support. African athletes compete and win world-class long-distance races in bare feet, obviously without arch support. And medically, pressing the tendons under your feet up against the bones in your feet while you are walking is only going to cause tearing of the protective sheath and RSI. This can be crippling.

Gel Soles: these remove almost all proprioceptive feedback from the ground, so you have no idea what sort of terrain you are standing on. The usual result is a sprained ankle (or worse) when you don't realise your foot is not being properly/stably supported on the ground – small rocks etc. Very heavy rigid soles can do this as well.

So why do some people still peddle these things?
The first reason is that they are selling Nike shoes, and that's what they have been told by the Nike rep (or their boss). So they mindlessly go along with the spin.
The second reason is that they have drunk the Nike Cool-Aid without thinking. If Nike says so, it must be …
The third reason is that they haven't a clue what they are saying, although it is unlikely they would ever admit that. Such people may be the noisiest about this, trying to justify their own ignorance.

My personal opinion is that there would be good grounds for a huge class action against Nike for all the injuries people have suffered as a result – but I guess it will never happen.

Cheers

"So why do some people still peddle these things?"

Umm… to make money?

Somehow I've managed to get by without them for 50+ years of walking, running, hiking and backpacking without an injury. Lucky?

Interesting comments, Roger. I know that I've always been uncomfortable in anything purporting to offer "good arch support" – to my feet, it feels exactly the way you describe – pressing the tendons under my feet uncomfortably up against the bones. In particular the "Superfeet" insoles – even the softest ones – would completely hobble me. I can happily throw away the insoles altogether on most shoes, they just represent volume adjustment for me.

But clearly it isn't just Nike. Aren't Superfeet marketed as providing "proper" arch support? How is it that, anecdotally, many people claim that they are uncomfortable without arch support? Superfeet do seem to be popular, I've heard numerous claims that they have solved people's problems.

I did the 100 mile wilderness in the same trail runners with a lot of mesh that I normally used in the Sierra Nevada with no issues. Though I don't do minamalist style runners so I do use a shoe with some support. No need for boots thought. I would not do gortex as my shoes were wet enough as it was. With gortext, they'd never have dried.

I did it in 9 days including the day on Katadin which is outside of the wilderness.
There are a lot of roots. There are some rock scrambles where the trail basically goes up a boulder field. Some of the water fords have a lot of very slippery rocks on the bottom. But I don't remember any particularly sharp rocks. Just use the shoes you normally use for backpacking unless you are going to change your style into a beast of burden.

I'm a big advocate of Superfeet. I have exceptionally high arches anyway, so theres not any real arch support.

But anecdotally it does seem to have improved my lower back issues. They were never that serious, but a day on my feet would leave me with with a sore lower back when I got to bed.

I read some of, I think, Chris Townsend's reports on insoles and gave the blue Superfeet a go. I haven't had those back problems for years. They are in pretty well all my shoes if they will fit.

Can't agree more on the width thing as well. I crammed my feet into too narrow shoes for most of my life. Now I'll search for the widest I can find.

Oh, and Moab ventilators – wide if necessary.

Hi Ralph

> it isn't just Nike. Aren't Superfeet marketed as providing "proper" arch support?
Can you spell 'free-loading on the Nike PR budget'?

> many people claim that they are uncomfortable without arch support?
Yes, I know. By and large, you may get this comment from someone who has weak feet. The extra softness and thickness of the Superfeet insoles provide a little more padding for their rather unfit feet. The real cure here is to do lot's of walking on rough terrain with moderately minimal shoes. After a while the tendons in your foot strengthen up. (Honest!)

By way of example, check what happens when someone goes straight from 'big boots' to Vibram Five Fingers. Ouch … sore bruised soles by the dozens. Some of our experienced walkers here in Oz go walking in something like minimalist Keds without socks. Yeah, they have hard feet. NOT advised for novices.

Cheers

Hi Justin

> "Foot sizing – use a Brannock Device and find out your foot WIDTH. Never buy a
> shoe which is smaller/narrower."
> That would work if shoe companies actually based their sizing and width off the
> Brannock Device. Doesn't seem to be the case.

I understand. You will often find on the web sites for the big brands a small note (for each model) saying whether this shoe runs under- or over-size. That is based on field testing feedback. Imho, it is only the much smaller companies who do not have the volume throughput to permit them to actually 'control' their shoe sizes. Such companies often just go for a 'medium' width for all their shoes – that's usually a D fitting. Such companies are a bit more risky imho.

> I usually bring out a size up and a size down in addition to the size the customer
> suggested, even if their foot gets measured.
Then you are a good man. Women especially often need to be 'persuaded' to go up a size above what they specify.

Cheers

Yeah, this is one of my big pet peeves as well – so many people have been given orthotics to wear without any real idea why they wear them…they just keep buying them because years ago some podiatrist told them they needed arch support.

The fact is your foot is like a tripod: the ball of your big toe, the ball of your little toe, and your heel are the legs of the tripod, and the rest of the foot is SUPPOSED to move all over the place; this is how you step on uneven surfaces, rocks, roots, uphill, downhill, etc. For some reason we want to turn our feet into these hard concrete blocks that just plod on the ground like a robot's foot.

If you remove the ability of your foot to move about when you step on uneven surfaces, over time you lose the elasticity of the tendons and ligaments of your foot and ankle, you alter the biomechanics of your entire lower kinetic chain, and then pretty soon you HAVE to have an orthotic to stop your foot from moving about to conform to surfaces (because it now hurts to do that), you remove the shock absorption of your arch which is SUPPOSED TO PRONATE as you load and unload your leg so now you need gel inserts and cushioned shoes to absorb your ground reaction forces.

Now – I don't really care what your ancestors did 10k years ago and I think that argument is a straw man (sorry Roger…you really need to take that out of your lexicon) because YOUR bones and YOUR muscles developed with shoes. As YOU grow and as YOUR neurons figure out the motor patterns of how YOU walk IN SHOES…these are the habits you have – not the ones your ancestors had. Heck, not even what your parents did. So yes, the move to more minimalist shoes does take a lot of time and work, and some people will not be able to do it. Their muscles and joints and ligaments and tendons and neurons are too set and too far gone to do anything about it – maybe your foot is too floppy from too many ankle sprains – and these are the people who need to compensate for the lack of muscles in the foot and ankle.

So – not everyone should wear minimalist shoes, and not everyone should wear SuperFEET. You should always try to work on your proprioception and intrinsic foot muscle strength before resorting to orthotics or inserts – but if it's not working, then go right ahead and wear those inserts/orthotics. But don't assume you have to all the time unless you've really tried to get out of them and failed.

Rant over.
Temporarily I'm sure.

If pronation control is a myth, why are there so many people choosing to pronate excessively ?

It's obvious from looking at people's shoes and their stride. Some are so bad they are almost walking on the heel cup instead of the outsole.

What benefits does choosing a highly pronated stride provide ?

That is a pathological pronation – and that is very much a weakness that starts at the hip muscles (watch their whole leg – the whole thing tends to fall inward, the knees knock together, the hip drops, etc) and extends all the way to the foot.

Now, you can either just brace that all day long (orthotics, inserts) which would be no different than wearing a back brace for you back pain for the rest of your life.

Or, you can strengthen all those pathologically weak muscles (which is what I figure out when you come to my clinic complaining of back pain, knee pain, ankle pain, plantar fasciitis, etc) and actually fix the problem.

"So – not everyone should wear minimalist shoes, and not everyone should wear SuperFEET…."

I'm going back, relevantly I hope, to an earlier thread. Jennifer, I skim those I sense speaking with certainty>authority on medical stuff, But I take note of your dismissal of Superfeet. The thing is, I haven't seen a shoe since 1970 that has an insole that looks diffferent than a superfoot: heel cup, raised arch, foam under balls of feet. So, for me, replacing the insole that comes with the shoe is just swapping in one that is more durable and longer lasting,…little softer under forefoot. If not putting in one with much different arch, what is the big deal? Would we be well to pull out the factory shaped-insole and start off with a flat Spenco to see if that's best, then move up if not? Seems like soft foam under the arch would be no worse than walking barefoot in soft dirt, like our ancient African progenitors, without sunscreen. :)

Charlie, I'm not dismissing them – I'm just saying that not everyone needs them.

Same with minimalist shoes, or orthotics, or even back braces: they serve a purpose in a select group of people – and not every intervention/shoe/insert/approach works for every person. That's all.

Yes, if you have a problem with your shoe's inserts, then by all means try different ones. But what I SOMETIMES take issue with is the automatic swapping out that some people do, or the automatic continuation of orthotics, that sort of thing.