Minimalist Footwear for Fall/Spring Backpacking

[Addie Bedford]

Companion forum thread to:

Minimalist Footwear for Fall/Spring Backpacking

[Justin Baker]

I am a big fan of classic vans or chucks. More their style though, they are not very durable the days and can cause occasional hot spots. But I have hiked so far and for so long in just classic vans. They are perfect for me.
These are my dream shoes:
http://www.russellmoccasin.com/boots_stalkingtracking/laramie_oneida_tracker.html

[Rick Donnelly]

I've been running up and down the Sandias and in the Grand Canyon in a pair of Nike SFB Mid Boots. My feet run towards narrow but I've had no problems with them. They're not as durable as I had hoped, and since Nike has discontinued the Mid size I'm in the hunt for another pair rather than moving up to their full size boot. But they were comfy right out of the box, and surprisingly faithful to the barefoot comfort I've grown used to in my KSOs and Merrill Tough Gloves. What sets the SFB's apart for me are how well they handle rocky trails. They've been as protective of my feet as my Salomon Fastpackers but more comfortable and a lot more anatomically correct. I cannot measure the heel lift in them, if they have it, but subjectively the last seems a lot flatter than regular hiking boots I've worn. I really like them, but wish Nike would make them in civilian rather than military khaki color and actually stock them. They're not in the least bit stylish but the comfort more than makes up for it.

[Everett Vinzant]

I've been 5k training in a pair of Vibram 5 Fingers Bikila's. I decided to go with the KSO Trek for 3 season backpacking. This worked for me because I had done training in the Bikila's. When I first went to this style of shoe, I ran in them for a couple miles. This was a huge mistake. My calves cramped so badly that I couldn't walk up or down a flight of stairs for a week (couldn't run either). Morale of the story is that if you are going to transition, do so slowly so that your body has time to adjust. I chose these shoes because I had problems with my knees, hips, and lower back. By running on the front 1/3 (approx) of my foot, I turned the muscles of my foot, ankle, and calves into another shock absorber "system" in my leg (added to the rest of the leg). I'm beginning 10k training next week, and marathon training 8 to 10 weeks after that.

I'm going to try climbing in these shoes too. I've done some bouldering with outstanding results. I manipulate my toes like I would my fingers to wrap around small grips. I can also transfer most of my weight to my big toe (and the toe next to it) when I need a "point." I know there are lots of climbers that do it barefoot, so I don't imagine this is a terrible idea.

As for pain with these shoes, I've had none (aside from the first two mile experience). No blisters, no foot injuries, no pain in knees, or lower back, etc. In fact, this has strengthened my ankles, and I no longer have problems with rolling them.

What I didn't like about the shoes: I haven't found the answer to that question yet. They're light and comfortable (approx 12 oz size 45 (U.S. 10)). I wish they made an "aqua sock" version for swimming.

[Eugene Smith]

New Balance is releasing the new MT110 in the fall, they've improved the traction significantly on the outsole in comparison to its' predecessor the MT101, they're also claiming a "broader" width in the toebox but not ridiculously wide as to compromise performance and protection. The rubber compound on the outsole is supposedly going to be "tackier" and more supple than the 101's for better traction on rock surface. The stack height in heel is 18mm and 14mm in the toebox, so they've reduced the 10mm heel/toe drop found in the older MT101 down to a nice 4mm drop in the upcoming model.

The stiff rock plate found in the forefoot of the MT101 has been toned down some for the new model, and the heel counter on the upper which seemed to give some people blister issues has been eliminated.

Concerning the upper, Anton Krupicka, mountain running god, who has developed the shoe from its infancy years ago alongside NB stated he got over 500+ miles of trail running in the CO mountains without nearly a wink of breakdown in the MT110's upper, many of those miles were in winter with Kahtoola spikes. That's pretty dang good considering the shoe is quite a bit less expensive than most of the other "minimalist" shoes out there which are in the $100+ range.

I'm pretty excited about this shoe.

The Saucony Peregrine is a shoe that should have been included in this article, these are proving to be most excellent in my experience so far.

[backpackerchick]

Rehabbing a back injury, I thought it would be a great time to experiment with more minimalist shoes as I'm not doing much mileage anyway. I really like the flatness of some of these shoes — I am convinced they enable to me to maintain the normal curves of the spine a bit easier. They are not so kind to heel strikers so I am quickly breaking the habit.

Transitioning from typical "performance neutral" shoes to NB Minimus and Inov-8 Bare-Grip 200 and others is not turning out to be much of a transition. A bit less cushioning perhaps. However, I am stumped by the Five Fingers Bikala (Women's 37). Running errands in these and simply walking a few minutes on a treadmill is a chore. Just to get it on, I must manually splay my toes much further than they would naturally splay while weight bearing in any situation. Once in, they are effectively locked in this position (like the toe separator they put between your toes when you get a pedicure). I tried on a couple of the KSO models and they seemed to pull the toes still further apart. What must be my dorsal metatarsal ligaments get quite sore from this pulling. Is this a desired effect?

Allowing the toes to splay sounds reasonable. But shouldn't the toes be allowed to return to their relaxedl un-splayed state during the non weight bearing phases so they can splay again on the next impact? Perhaps not? I am afraid Five Fingers are going back to REI. Am I giving up to easily?

[tommy d]

George – Great suggestions for people looking to transition to minimalist footwear. My suspicion is that many people who "bruise" their feet in minimalist footwear are actually straining their arches, and not actually "bruising." It seems like an issue with their gait, not the ground or the footwear. So, your suggestions should be very useful.

As I've made the transition, I found that it's all about modifying your gait – body upright, bent knees, feet under hips, and faster cadence steps. Also, a mid-foot strike just as you describe, right behind the little toe. But, don't walk on your toes. Bending your ankles and stepping down lightly is especially important over miles of sharp, loose rock.

Also, I've found that minimalist shoes excel on steep rock. My TrekSports really allow me to get my toes into cracks, while having just enough support in the sole.

I've worn these TrekSprots on snow and ice. The biggest issue in those conditions, really is insulation. I need to play around with it some more this Fall. I've been thinking about combining them with a Forty Below overboot, like the Light Energy.

[George Matthews]

Tommy,

Looks like we are figuring this stuff out : ). Agree with you about people straining their arches. Our feet are amazing devices, but just like everything else in life, we need to learn how to use them properly if we minimize our shoes. Gaining an understanding about our anatomy and analysis of our gait is not for everyone. I'm four months into my transition and am quite delighted with my progress. I'm only transitioning because it is making my life better. I can run now 6+ miles and enjoy it. Years ago I'd given up on running because it was like suffering to me and I'd hurt all over afterwards.

I backpacked recently on a lot of hard rock, loose stuff, a little snow, a bit of mud, etc. I did low miles because I was with my wife, but carried some decent weight. I did ankle stretching when I first woke in the morning before I got up – dorsiflexion and plantarflexion. Also, got to put the feet in very, cold water (snow melt) at least once a day. I had enough in my feet/legs to run a couple of miles without my pack after we were done hiking for the day.

Over the next couple of months, I going to hike some 1-3 nighters. Will have a very light pack and try to get up to about 20 or so miles per day. No pressure on myself. I will stop sooner if my feet tell they've had enough.

Don't know about insulation. Have not been able to find much about that. I will look at the Light Energy.

Let's keep learning and doing and sharing!

[spelt with a t]

Hartley, I had the same problems. I don't think I have the right shaped toes for VFFs. Could be b/c they're short, so the angles between them are greater when the shoe is on than they would be for someone with longer toes. In any case, I found them really uncomfortable.

[tommy d]

George – Yup, I agree. We're on our way to figuring it out. ;-)

I've been thinking more and more about the idea that (generally) the human body is not an inherently flawed "design" that needs to be "fixed." Instead, we need to "start from zero" AKA a naked human body and then build from that point as needs present themselves. To ween myself from footwear, I've been hiking barefoot and using minimalist footwear this year. All of my trips have been in northern New England, from nice flat trails to across the ridge of the Presidential Range, through mud and snow melt, across roots and rocks.

Unfortunately, I'm stuck in town until September, while I finish my degree. But, beginning in September, I'll be back to my regular levels of hiking and backpacking and running. As I learn more, I'll be sure to share it here.

[backpackerchick]

Spelt —

Yeah, that's the scoop — they're hit or miss. If your feet look like the Five Fingers, that is If your feet are that wide across the ball of the foot and your toes approximate the size and shape of Vibram toes (short and stubby), perhaps they're a hit. I have long thin toes.

That being said, a lot people are modifying them in various ways. There are forums devoted to this. I like the concept and they're cute and fun but I can't be bothered with mods at this point. If a model comes out that appears to better approximate the dimensions of my feet, perhaps I'll give them another go :)

[Eugene Smith]

For VFF to make a "shoe" that assumes the anatomical makeup of everyones foot is homogenous is a joke IMO, the evolving closet of near barefoot and minimalist shoes that forego the gimmicky toe pockets of the VFF in favor of a broader toebox are proving you don't really need them…. the toe condoms that is.

[backpackerchick]

Eugene:
I'm over it :) In the last couple weeks, I've tried so many "minimalist" offerings. I have a large stack for UPS tomorrow! I like that so many of these are flat — same height forefoot and heel or just a slight stack height.

[George Matthews]

'Geneius,

LOL – toe condoms – still LOL : )

Hartley,

Good luck. You will find your golden shoe! I had trouble when I first got my VFF. Now they slip right on. My little toe took a bit longer than my other little piggies, but now goes wee-wee-wee all the way home when I put them on.

All,

I also like Trail Gloves. But they look like clown shoes if you really look down at them. When you think more about this subject, our feet are pretty funny looking, too. Study your naked feet for a few minutes when you need a good laugh. I don't think anyone ever texts pictures of their feet to their sweethearts.

[Henk Smees]

Hi all.

I have a -for me- important question about minimalist shoes…… But, let’s explain my situation first: Over the last few years, I’ve been transitioning into lighter packs, although I haven’t been able to get the base weight into the UL-figures -yet :)-. At the moment, for three season use, it’s in between 5 and 6 kgs (11 – 13 lbs.) but I’m confident I’ll be able to get it into the single digits with a few more MYOG alterations I have in mind (I’m hoping to achieve an 8 or 9 lbs. base weight).

At the same time I’ve changed my shoes as well. All my life (I’m nearly sixty now) I’ve been walking in sturdy, heavy, semi-rigid mountain boots, because that’s what you were supposed to do when venturing into the mountains; at the moment (except in mid-winter) I do exactly the same as I did before, but use sandals (Columbia Titanium Torrent) instead of the fore-mentioned boots. I have to admit this has taken quite a while: I started with some mid height trekking boots, then went to lower boots, changed into XC Trainers and my last acquisition (over 1 year ago) was the pair of before mentioned water sandals.

With every change my feet became happier and now, with the sandals, they are delighted. Where before, with the heavy boots they felt miserable and in pain at the end of the day, now they seem to be able to keep on walking and walking and walking. Only once a blister was developed and that, I think, was because I really went too quick (was in a haste to get to the end of a trail at an agreed time). At my age I don’t run anymore -I don’t even walk at a quick pace-, but I do walk from dawn till dusk which means I’m getting about 20 to 30 miles out of each day (depending on elevation gain) and that’s what my question is about:

Since my actual Columbia Torrent' are -nearly- ready for retirement, I was thinking of getting the Tech Amphibian (Salomon); these are still sandals but they have a mesh covering to help keep debrish out (quite an advantage over 'normal' sandals). Now, after reading this very informative article, I wouldn't mind undertaking another change in my walking-habits, but…… What about doing the kind of mileage explained before in minimalist or barefoot shoes? When answering this question it’s important to bear in mind that my “adventures” in the backcountry normally last about 1 to 2 weeks; this means, on a “normal” hike (1 week to 10 days), I carry ALL my food (10 days = around 15 lbs.) for the whole trip in my pack from the beginning (if the trip is 2 weeks, I’d organize same in such a way I’ll have a re-supply point somewhere half way). All this means that my initial starting weight (base weight + consumables + water) -at this moment- for a 10-day trip gets up to a considerable 30 lbs (12 + 15 + water). Even WHEN I get the base weight down to 8 or 9 lbs. (note I didn’t say IF, because I’m sure I’ll be able to), the total initial weight will not be less than 25 lbs (8 + 15 + water). Once again, is this “doable” with minimalist or barefoot shoes?

[David Chenault]

"Once again, is this “doable” with minimalist or barefoot shoes?"

Yes, with the sort of mindful transition mentioned above. IMO the speed of that transition depends a lot on individual variation. Listen to your body and you should be fine.

A sort of step down shoe might be a good idea. Something like a Sportiva Crossleather or Fireblade or Salmon Speedcross, light but with some rigidity.

[George Matthews]

Henk,

Another vote for 'doable' if going lighter.

>>30 lbs (12 + 15 + water)

I carried 29 lb on first day of a recent hike using VFF. My feet were fine. However, I did not do 25 mile days. Average was less than six miles per day with pack + a little running without pack.

Soon I will be doing higher mileage but with SUL base pack wt, and not more than 3 days of food (total 5 + 4.5 = about 10 lb)

IMO, as we age, if we want to hike more mileage then we need to really lighten our packs. My gut feel is that 25 mile days with close to 30 lb might be pushing the limits unless you are superman : )

[Scott S]

I want to ask a more general question about minimalist shoes: is there any science behind using these shoes for hiking?

I'm a runner, and I've read a lot about the benefits of minimal running shoes. There's even some science to back up the claims of barefoot-type runners. But running is very different from hiking. So, can anyone point me to actual scientific studies of minimal hiking shoes?

FWIW, I'm extremely skeptical about minimal hiking shoes. I thru-hiked the PCT in very cushy NB trail runners (with custom orthotics) and had ZERO foot problems except for a few blisters. Why switch?

[George Matthews]

Science? My guess is that there is none.

So, why switch?

A combination of insanity and pure joy.

[John S.]

No pain, no gain.

[backpackerchick]

Scott:

My question exactly. There has been a fair bit of analysis of the barefoot runner. A number of conclusions have been drawn regarding the natural running motion. Numerous books have been devoted to the subject, some of which are excellent reads. However, is walking different? And how? Are the footwear needs of walkers different? And how?

I walk and run. The motion is not the same. Does it matter in terms of footwear? I don't know.

Re: the hype about splay. How much do YOUR toes splay? Have a look.

[Henk Smees]

Hi George,

>> IMO, as we age, if we want to hike more mileage then we need to really lighten our packs <<

Indeed, the older we get, the more complicated it becomes to do high mileage with heavy packs (‘heavy’ meant -in early days- a total weight of over 25 kgs – 55 lbs). Then the time came my body -especially my knees- was telling me I had to either (1) give up walking or (2) get the pack weight down or (3) do very low mileage. I wasn’t willing to do either 1 or 3, so that’s why I started reading about going UL. As I said before, I’ve managed so far to go as low as 11 – 13 lbs, but I’m convinced I’ll get it down to 8 – 9 lbs (hopefully even less). As most of us, I’ve created a spreadsheet with my gear list but, taking it a step further, I also created a spreadsheet with my menu. It isn’t completely finished yet but the idea is being able to alter the ‘ingredients’ of my menu and instantly getting back the changes in calories (this part is ready), as well as the protein, carbs and fat proportions. So far, this has enabled me to get about 3000 cal out of 700 gr (1.5 lbs) of food per day and I’m trying to get the same calories at an even lower weight, with a ‘perfect’ balance of Prot/Carb/Fat proportions.

>> My gut feel is that 25 mile days with close to 30 lb might be pushing the limits unless you are superman :) <<

I’m certainly not superman and have been doing high mileage with the initial 30 lbs on my back [first days: lower miles; towards the end (less food), higher miles] with the mentioned sandals. And I was fine. That’s why I wanted to know whether it would be possible to do the same -eventually, after the required training period- with the minimalist shoes.

[backpackerchick]

I'm not sure this has been subject to rigorous testing.

Flyingdutchman, if you subscribe to this old adage, one should ultimately be able to go FURTHER in lighter shoes than in heavier shoes. What do you think?

[Henk Smees]

I have heard about this adage and I’m pretty sure there will be some truth in same. Having said so, I don’t know whether this works for everybody or not. I can only talk for myself, but I must say that I’ve never had any problems with my legs, not even after very long days (up to 40 – 45 miles; the longest distance I’ve walked in a day was 56 miles, but that was without a pack and I was 35 years younger then). I’m convinced that the combination of both training and genetics (probably the latter is more important), has been the reason why my body has developed such strong leg muscles and that’s why they never let me down. Whenever I’ve had to give up, or slow down, it has always been because my lungs couldn’t deliver the oxygen required for the exercise or my feet couldn’t cope with being confined in those heavy boots.

What I’m trying to explain is that I don’t see myself being able to walk a lot more by just bringing down the weight of the shoes from about 13 oz. (each of my actual Columbia Titanium Torrent, size 46EU ≈ 12.5USA) to -how much- 8oz.?? 6oz.?? for some minimalist shoes. Don’t know how much these would weigh, but I can’t see it makes that much of a difference whilst my legs seem to be able to cope, without any problems, with a lot more weight. As a matter of fact, they even do well with my extremely heavy weight, double, winter mountaineering boots .

[George Matthews]

Henk,

My gut feel was for minimalist shoes. Not what you've been doing.

Maybe you claim not to be superman with your sandals, but we will call you Clark Kent then. : )

Backpacking with minimalist shoes will have limits, however, I do not believe enough backpackers have hiked enough miles to establish a relevant range. Maybe 25 lb pack and 20 mile days, or maybe 15 lb pack and 25 mile days. Who knows.

I think those like us here, young and old, will be the ones who venture into this fringe to find out. Next August, my bet is that we all will know alot more about our limits.

Starting with strong feet/legs is a big plus during the transition to minimalist shoes. Beginning without carrying a pack seems like a good strategy. Follow with day hikes and 1-3 nighters with a light pack. Then maybe go week+ long where food will increase weight near 30 lb. For example I know I can hike about six miles a day with that weight for a few days. But could I go a week or more?

Soon I will let you know what I can do with about 10 lb pack.

Sorry, rather than answering your question, I asked more questions. : )

[Author]

Posts