Making the case for lighter footwear

Here it is :
Energy cost of backpacking in heavy boots

Abstract
Previous studies have investigated the oxygen cost (02) of increasing boot weight during unloaded walking or running, and have shown that for each 100 g increase in weight of footwear there is a 0·7-1·0% increase in O2 In reality (except in athletic events) the use of heavy footwear is associated with load carriage, usually backpacking. We therefore investigated the effects of increasing boot weight by 5% of body weight on the 02 of backpacking a load amounting to 35% of the body-weight in five healthy young males who walked at 4·5 km/hour (0% grade) on a motor-driven treadmill. The results indicated a mean increase of 0·96% in 02 whilst backpacking for each 100thinsp;-g increase in boot weight. In contrast the oxygen cost of increasing the backpack load was only 0·15% indicating that it was 6·4 times more expensive to carry weight on the feet as compared to the back. It is concluded that the relation between boot weight and oxygen cost, previously developed for unloaded walking and running, can reasonably be extended to include heavier boots and backpacking.

Legg SJ, Mahanty A. PMID: 3698970 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE
( corrected reference )
I did download the other text ( the full text!) and could not find the reference but I assumed that It was just me.

Thanks to Tony Beasley for posting this on an other forum.
Sorry Tom Van Wauwe
Somehow I had forgotten that you had already posted that in THIS thread…

Franco

I wouldn't still say "a pound in your feet is like xxx pounds in your back". Backpacking is much more than walking on a treadmill. It's actually much more than walking. You have to take your pack on and off, climb over or crawl under a fallen log, wade a stream… it's clear using heavy footwear is not for free but I still think trying to compare it to a backpack load is apples to oranges. I'd take the famous sentence as a metaphore or a graphical way of showing the importance of lightweight footwear.

Franco, something doesn't add up. The abstract and your reference below do not go together.

I posted the Knapik reference above and Tom posted the abstract you just posted. What site is Tony posting on?

Somewhat related to the weight issue but not exactly the same: has someone ever seen a (decent) study discussing low vs. high footwear and the question of ankle support?
My personal feeling is that this issue needs to be addressed first before people can be convinced to switch their heavy and sturdy backpacking boots for lightweight and mostly lower cut shoes. Not so much the weight as the feeling that heavy boots offer the needed support and low cut shoes don't, is the reason why most people still use boots.

Tom, all you'd have to ask is has anybody going lightweight (less than 30ish total pack weight) ever sprained an ankle?

I have never used boots since 2002 and have had no injuries. But my load is never over 25 lbs, maybe once when carrying 8 liters of water in the Guadalupe mountains. While backpacking, I've had a few ankle rolls though. In my teenage years I had at least two bad sprains while playing basketball and one stress fracture while jogging.

Those carrying heavier loads or having recent sprains/weak ankles may certainly need boots. The majority here do not wear them.

A study about ankle support would be interesting, but I doubt it has been done. I don't know for sure.

The argument, as it has been presented to me, is that fatigue, rather than insufficient ankle support, is the primary cause of ankle injury. Furthermore, the support of those leather stompers (so goes this argument) is perhaps not all it is cracked up to be, and as is noted above, the energy required to move them along is substantial. Anything that reduces fatigue will therefore reduce ankle injury, especially at the end of those long days, and reduction of fatigue is by far the best way to prevent injury. Also, those who habitually walk on uneven terrain will be better prepared to walk on the trail- thus decent leg strength can also be more important than footwear support. Finally, modification of stride to compensate for those sore spots that, at least for me, always accompanied leather stompers, can cause all sorts of other problems.

The other argument for more substantial footwear is protection from the elements. This site, however, has a number of great articles on how to adapt light footwear to a variety of conditions with very little if any loss of functionality, and great savings in weight and comfort. I never made heavy leather boots work in the first place, so any trade off here has been well worth it for me!

Let me say that I don't propose any footwear orthodoxy: personal choices will vary due to all sorts of perfectly justified reasons.

For me, trekking poles are invaluable to the well-being of my legs, particularly on challenging terrain. For a little weight in the hands, I can add a great deal of support, balance, and security on my feet.

Tom's question, though, gets to the fact that the choice is not simply between light sneakers and leather stompers. There is obviously quite a spectrum available to hikers today, and the incremental potential advantages of, say, low to mid height hikers might be interesting to analyze, particularly relative to different variables such as previous injury, unavoidable increased pack weight even with UL principles due to water requirements, and levels of conditioning (i.e. going straight into an intense hike from a relatively sedentary lifestyle).

Thanks John,

This abstract which I posted yesterday on an Australian forum was originally from earlier posting in this thread by Tom Van Wauwe.

While searching the topic I found many good articles on loads and backpacking which I put in a file and I then grabbed the wrong reference this is the right one. I hope Franco will correct this today. Sorry for any inconvenience

Legg SJ, Mahanty A. PMID: 3698970 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE

> the support of those leather stompers is perhaps not all it is cracked up to be, and as is
> noted above, the energy required to move them along is substantial.
Yep on both issues. The ultimate ankle support are plastic ski boots.

> The other argument for more substantial footwear is protection from the elements.
Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? They have a retreating market to protect.

Fact: half the world goes barefoot. Fact! And they don't have the foot problems seen by the Western world.

Fact: many extreme walkers use UL footwear. Fact.

My favourite footwear for extreme trips:

Cheers

"Yep on both issues. The ultimate ankle support are plastic ski boots."
Sorry Roger but us Italians know a thing or two about boots , so I would suggest that Concrete Boots are better.

Concrete Boots (by After The Fall)
"These concrete boots he wears, make it hard to reach the air.
These concrete boots he wears.
http://www.mp3.com.au/Track.asp?id=117143

Franco

This may be a dumb questions…..but, in these calculations, do they mean 1 lb per foot, or 1 lb total?

Im assuming 1lb total, but just throwing the question out there.

"Fact: half the world goes barefoot. Fact! And they don't have the foot problems seen by the Western world."

Yes, but that is deceiving. There are many other factors to consider, not the least of which is the fact that a lot of the "Western world" walks a great deal on hard, flat surfaces most of the time.

"Fact: half the world goes barefoot. Fact! And they don't have the foot problems seen by the Western world."

Another fact: The oldest shoe yet discovered is ~7,000 years old. They must have had a reason.

I have been experimenting with minimal shoes for several years, including 5 Fingers and XC Flats, which are the most minimal of all. My preferred shoe is a flat, but we get to a point of diminishing returns. I do well with the lightest flats for several days and even 20+ miles in difficult terrain cause me no problems. But to do a multi-week trip with high mileage, I would go with something more "conventional" in the way of trail runners.

From what I have read, it is unlikely that ancient man walked 20+ miles per day for extended periods. They walked in the mornings and evenings to hunt, then rested while they ate the hunted food. Gathers stayed close to their seasonal homes. Modern shoeless societies for the most part are not doing thru-hiker mileage either.