100 Mile Wilderness: Shoe selection

Charley, the different with Superfeet is not just durability etc. For me, the "cheap" insubstantial insoles that usually come with shoes, or no insoles at all, are fine. But I find even the least rigid Superfeet crippling – they put uncomfortable pressure on my arches – I literally could not walk even a mile in them.

I'm not saying they are necessarily a bad thing – although they don't work for my feet, they clearly work well for some people. But I'm just pointing out that there is a significant difference, most particularly in the arches.

"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."

Btw, this is one of the tools I mentioned on runningwarehouse.com's site that I really liked. If you have a shoe that fits the way you like, and if it's in their database, you can use the size suggestion tool and have them suggest a size for you, based on the fit of the shoe you like. It will then also build a 3D model of "differential" – i.e. where the candidate shoe will fit differently and in what way and to what degree compared to your favorite shoe.

the tool is really very clever, and quite cool to play with. NO idea how accurate it is, but if it's accurate, it's a highly effective way to find a replacement shoe based off of what you already know works for you.

I purchased a pair of La Sportiva Bushidos based off of the fit of my Merrell Pace Gloves. They should arrive tomorrow. If anyone is interested, I can let you know how accurate I think their size recommendation tool was…

"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."

This is kind of what my thoughts were as well. I just wanted feedback from people who'd been on this section of the trail to see if I was way off-base.

I've really enjoyed reading the discussion that developed here.

For me, I was told in college by a sales person at a running shoe place that I needed to correct for over-pronation. They gave me a pair of Asics that supposedly corrected this problem. I loved those sneakers – they were very comfortable and I never had any problems wearing them, or using them for hiking, and I used them until the soles fell off.

I was told the same thing about over-pronation by a sales person at an outdoor store at about the same time when I bought my first pair of big-lug, GorTex-lined hiking boots, and they handed me a pair of green SuperFeet inserts to use with them. Those boots were also really comfortable, and they fit well. I never had foot fatigue in them, or blisters. And when I started researching the ultralight philosophy/method of backpacking years later, my boots were the last thing I gave up…

Once I did, I never went back.

I LOVE the Merrell Pace Gloves. I haven't had any of the problems in them that people warn about (foot fatigue, sole brusing, etc.). My feet DO get tired standing in them for REALLY long periods of time (hours) on hard surfaces like tile or concrete. But I haven't found shoes yet that that doesn't happen in. I think just standing around for hours on concrete isn't good for me.

So I guess I'm on the fence. Or will have to do some testing when the Bushidos arrive. I haven't used any pronation corrective inserts in years. Maybe I was too young at the time to really pay much attention to the differences between my shoes WITH support and the ones without?

My decision to buy the Bushidos was based on it being down to the Helios or the Bushidos. The Bushidos had good reviews, and supposedly offered moderate pronation support, whereas the Helios were neutral. Because of what I had been told in college, I thought I'd try them out and see what I thought.

I am also very likely to just stick with my Pace Gloves since I like them and they have worked well for me. I honestly think the agility is going to be irreplaceable, and that I will miss both that and how light they are if I use something else – I'll be kicking myself (figuratively). Though, I may have to at least start out with a new pair. My current pair are getting a bit long in the teeth, and I'm not sure they would last from now until Sept 1, plus another 100 miles…

Hi Jennifer

> 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)
Well … 100K years of evolution is not to be dismissed too lightly. That's what evolved the general shape of your bones, tendons, muscles and so on. Heritage does matter imho.

> 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.
True, but … for most of my life I have worn flip-flops, and that includes my working life. I never wrecked my feet with shoes. Since teenagerhood I have owned maybe 2 or 3 pairs of shoes – just for formal occasions. Last time I tried to wear them (some years ago now) it was agony: they were still size 8 while I had grown to size 10. I gave them away.

On the other hand, I totally agree with the idea that how you walk depends on YOUR body. Just because model X suits me is ZERO reason to think they would be of any use to YOU.

'Pronation Control' is a huge oxymoron, driven by spin (and $$$).

Cheers

Pronation control is that darker denser foam on the side of this shoe you reviewed favorably.

>> 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)
>Well … 100K years of evolution is not to be dismissed too lightly. That's what evolved the
>general shape of your bones, tendons, muscles and so on. Heritage does matter imho.

Well… the last 40,000 of those 100K the human feet have evolved in shoes… so imho if you are going to take heritage into consideration you should get the history right. Humans spent much of early times running around naked, but modern humans are much more prone to exposure. And, It is laughable to suggest the paleo diet looks anything like what cavemen ate.

> the last 40,000 of those 100K the human feet have evolved in shoes
Really?
Enlighten me please as to the evidence.

To be sure, people sometimes wore moccasins, but they are soft and shapeless, and merely protect the feet from snow and sticks.
To be sure, Roman soldiers wore sandals, but they were to protect the soles of the feet from the rocky roads.
To be sure, Egyptian Pharoahs wore something very similar to flip flops.
But 40K years, IN shoes? You will have to produce scientific evidence for that claim.

As to paleo diets …this week's fad.

Cheers

Well Willie – I have the luxury of having feet that don't move. So it doesn't really matter what type of shoe I use (although shoes with SIGNIFICANT medial posts do bother me, like the Montrail Masochists) because all I care about is how much cushion there is – that seems to be all I feel.

My point is that everyone is different – some people will feel better with a bit of a medial posting to help with rearfoot inversion, some people will feel better in cushion…. But NO ONE should use something that fills up the arch with something hard – it is NOT a weight-bearing surface.

Again, my main point is that NOTHING works for EVERYONE.

I'll turn 40,000 this September. Still haven't quite paid off my student loans. But I have been wearing shoes the whole time; too bad!

Hi Willie

> Pronation control is that darker denser foam on the side of this shoe you reviewed favorably.

Nope. 'Pronation control' is a Nike concept which New Balance does not support and does not implement in these shoes. The grey bit you mention is a 'Medial post for added stability' and nothing more.

What is the difference? It is NOT meant to 'control' how your foot lands or moves the way Nike promotes it; it is mainly there to keep the shoe from distorting as you run. Heel strike puts some pretty high impact forces on the foam insole material, and you don't want the fairly light-weight foam there collapsing under the impact. There is a huge difference between trying to 'control' your motion (make your foot do something it would not otherwise do) and trying to present a neutral base for your foot at all times. A neutral base is good.

Unfortunately, we are currently stuck with the phrase 'Overpronation'. The media in its massive ignorance has heard about it. But all it really describes is the NATURAL motion of YOUR foot. To be sure, you might roll your foot a bit more than average, but so what? That is how YOUR foot works. Let it be.

Cheers

Cheers

Roger,

If you preface your usage of the terms with Nike Motion Control, Nike Pronation control, Nike … then I wouldn't feel like you are rewriting terms that the entire industry has been using for the past 3 decades.

Incidentally, did anyone happen to keep a gear list for their hike of this section?

Has anyone done it around the first 2 weeks of September?

I'm having a hard time location historical weather data for this specific area. I've found some resources, but it's going to take a lot of combing through them to find what I need.

Sharon, I did that section in mid-August. I had a fairly typical 3 season pack. I had a 30 degree bag. I had a tarp for shelter. I had a very light puffy for night time warmth. I don't remember ever really getting cold. There were a few bugs but not terrible.

Thanks, Ben.

I've really wondered about shelter. I had intended to bring my Tarptent Rainshadow 2, but I have a few concerns.

1) I was thinking I might be able to get away with something smaller/lighter. Maybe a smaller Tarptent even (it's been a while since I've looked at the tent market, so I'm not sure what's out there).

2) It is unclear to me whether or not pitching a tent/camping at non-shelter sites is allowed. There seems to be one section in particular (throughout the Katahdin Iron Works/Jo-Mary Multiple Use Management Forest) where I have confirmed that doing so is NOT allowed. So I am concerned about being able to actually pitch a tent or tarp at all in places. One person's blog suggested a free-standing shelter that can be pitched on a hard surface without stakes?… I was thinking I could still tie-out to nearby trees, but with my Rainshadow, some amount of getting a taut pitch would definitely depend on getting a correct angle on the guylines.

If I had my way, I wouldn't camp at designated sites at all…

And yes, I do prefer my Tarptent to just a Tarp for shelter in Maine for a number of reasons – but primarily for the bathtub floor and for the bug protection. And I'm not likely to budge on this preference… But I would consider something smaller, since the Rainshadow 2 is a 3 person shelter and there are only 2 of us.

There is no reason at all you need a free-standing shelter. The ground is always fine for putting in a stake. The tree cover is always thick, so I wouldn't worry too much about wind either. I would just take the lightest shelter you're comfortable with on that trail. If you're set on a floor and bug netting, I think one of the Zpacks tents would be perfect. But most anything will work fine there as shelter depending on your preferences.

Sharon, You may have already read these but just in case you hadn’t
AT Section Hike: 100 Mile Wilderness

How to Hike the 100 Mile Wilderness

His Gear List For The Trip

100 Mile Wilderness

>> the last 40,000 of those 100K the human feet have evolved in shoes
>Really?
>Enlighten me please as to the evidence.

http://www.livescience.com/4964-shoes-worn-40-000-years.html

I'm no expert… you are welcome to dig as much as you would like. The way I read it: wearing shoes has been shown to change the way human feet develop. Studying the bones in human feet suggest we as a species started wearing shoes 40,000 years ago.

Thanks, Link. I've looked at most of those links. I will check them more carefully.

Hi Ben

You are going several steps too far. A common mistake, which science is well aware of.

ONE person is suggesting that changes in toe bone size starting 40k BPE mean that humans had started to wear shoes about then. That's his THEORY. But others disagree completely, citing lots of other factors around thenm, such as the start of farming.

Even so, the article remains seriously misleading to the layman. When the author of the idea used the word 'shoe' he did not mean a shoe such as you or I use the term: something with a solid sole and an upper. At the very best it would have been a very cude moccasin made of animal skin, such as Otzi was wearing in the snow. Otzi's were packed with special grasses for insulation, and would not have been able to alter the foot shape at all the way modern (undersized) shoes do.

And I can guarrantee that none of them had pronation control or arch support! Would not have had athlete endorsements either …

Cheers