Has anyone gone back to wearing boots after trying shoes?

Don't give up after one pair. How many pairs of boot did it take to find your favorites? Shoes are such a personal choice thing. Try on some more and keep track of what you like and don't like to narrow down your choices. I have not looked back. You might have to strengthen your feet a bit perhaps.

Hello,

Well Teva is not exactly known for producing good hiking shoes. They use to make a pretty sweet sandal you could hike in but they discontinued it a long time ago. The only thing from Teva I would even remotely consider using is the Omnium, but that is something only long distance hikers would have an appeal for (due to foot swelling).

There are a bazillion shoes that could be listed here (and sure others will) but you should consider going with some of the following:

Inov-8 Roclite 315 – a full size, super tough, shoe with a rock plate, decent padding and acceptable breathability.

Brooks Cascadia 7 – an amazingly comfortable shoe with excellent support and a good rock plate and so-so breathablity. This is a great first shoe when going from boots to trail shoes.

If you have a foot with fat toes, you could check out the new Inov-8 TrailRoc (BPL link) series of shoes. You would want to go with the 255. I do not think these should be a shoe you should use at this point though.

My vote goes to the Cascadia shoes as a great starting place when migrating from boots. Comfort, protection, not the lightest out there but lighter than boots. Only real downside to them is that they do not dry out as quickly as Inov-8 or other shoes that have less padding in them.

–Abela

I forgot to mention… I tried on about 20 pairs of shoes when I bought the Tevas… they were the best fitting, and fit my goal of having no mesh for sand to work its way in (which is what made me give up on the last 4 pairs of hiking shoes that I've bought and then regretted buying). It's not that they're uncomfortable… I was pretty pleased with how comfortable they were once I'd replaced the insoles. They fit snugly so my heel stays put, which is a rare find for me. I just found them much more tiring than my boots, when I thought the opposite would be true. Maybe I just need to strengthen my foot muscles? I wear boots for work as well, so pretty much the only time I wear shoes or sandals is for doing the shopping ;)

I switched from boots to shoes a little over a year ago, and most of the trips that I do that should be called lightweight have me using Inov-8 shoes. Once in a while, if I know the trip will be terribly wet or rocky, I will wear some Montrail boots.

Yes, the Inov-8 shoes are mesh on top, so sand and dust gets through the socks and covers my toes. But, what can you do?

–B.G.–

I wear unlined shoes most of the time for backpacks….but for the last couple of years I have switched to lined mids for multiple overnight hiking trips in Scotland.

The principal reason for this is not wanting to have wet stinking feet and footwear for several days at an end as up there wearing shoes in the sort of terrain I frequent will invariably result in soaked feet.

Yes. I tried several pair of light weight trail runners, hiking shoes. None were as comfortable as my older 19oz mid-hikers. I have had these for several years (since 2006 or so?) Adidas, Montrail, Keen, Solomon, Merril, Inov, and others have been tried over the years. Always one trip and back to boots. My last excursion was the NPT where I was determined to use Solomons for the whole trail. My feet were literally torn apart after three days of hiking, 22mi, 16mi, 10mi. All three sides of my achilles tendon were really sore and the tops of my arch was almost as bad. Only one small blister was present on my little toe. This was after 5 months of wearing them every day for workouts (running, walking over moderate terrain.) My feet healed after I got the boots on for the rest of the trip.

This forum and several lists I belong to have really urged me to switch to trail runners. I have hiked in mid-hikers for close to 20 years and low boots before that. I like to experiment, so not exclusively. In the ADK's, the preponderance of roots, rocks, boulders, and just plain off-level stream-side trails puts a lot of stress on the sides, bottoms and ankles. With runners, these were the areas that came up sore after a few days. So, for me, I think I will simply ignore all the urgingings from now on and use my boots. They work with no pain, unlike every pair of trail runners I have used. They work fine around camp, and for daily exercise routines, not so good for a week in the ADK's.

Well, I went from truly old-school, hard leather, big Vibram-soled boots to lightweight hiking boots many years ago, and then to trail runners and now back to "boots", albeit sorta lightweight ones –in a sense of relativity to other boots.

I noted the OP's comment that boots are worn daily at work, and I sense those are likely utility boots that weigh as much or more than a nice set of light hiking boots. In that case, with the hiker "normalized" to more foot weight and a higher level of sole protection, etc… I'm not surprised.

In my case, my loads aren't yet light enough nor my feet strong enough such that I enjoy backpacking with my excellent trail runners, which I hike in regularly. I prefer the more robust rock-plate, beefy toe box and ankle coverage of my boots, and I make up the "weight difference" by carrying a smaller cast iron skillet. Ha ha.

:) I've never looked back

my footwear evolution went- heavy leather backpacking boots-> "light" leather backpacking boots-> light trail running mids-> trail runners, I could have skipped all those in between steps (and saved $!), but I guess I had to see it for myself- now I believe :)

I tried the Nike Lava Domes when they first came and set the stage for low-cut, light-weight hikers. And I never took a BPing with boots again. For cramponing? Snowshoeing? Running the chainsaw? Yeah, I kept one pair for that, but after realizing I had nice Danners, Raichle, etc, full-grain leather, vibram Montagna soles, that I hadn't used AT ALL for 15 years, I donated them.

There are now many more options than Lava Domes and when I got a pair of 25th anniversary Lava Domes, I realized how much low-cut hikers had improved. Merrill's idea of a foot's shape fits me well, so I usually use their's. Or Salomon for those that came from the Trail Runner end of the spectrum.

>"My feet seem a lot more tired than they are in boots, and I can feel all the lumps and bumps under my feet."

That sounds like me if I do more than 20 miles in running shoes without a stiff sole. I try to twist low-cut hikers in the store and if I can get more than 30-40% twist from heel to toe when I really crank on them, I pass. Over 25 miles on a dayhike or over 15 or so with weight on my back, and I want that stiffness in the sole, or my foot feels beat up at the end of the day for having stepped on so many roots, rocks, and uneven ground.

hail naw.

If its ankle support your after there are a few people who make very lightweight/ minimal mid trail running shoes, I recently started looking around for some.

One benifit of mids is better ankle support. It seems like you dont have to be as carefull stepping on uneven terrian. Also debris rocks etc. are less likley to get in you shoe.

Nope, and my boots got relegated to trail maintenance only. If it's a backpack in project, I'll lug the boots in/on my pack and still wear my trail shoes (Inov-8 Roclite 295s) for the hike in/out, use them as camp shoes, etc. The 295s also became my everyday shoe too.

If I could find the perfect boot, it might be a different story.

Agree that you should not base your decision on Tevas. I tried the Raith mids because they fit well in the store, with good heel lockdown, which is almost impossible for me to find also. But on the trail, they were a nightmare, much as described by James M., except it only took a day hike to reach max pain.

Liked David T's advice about flexing. Will try that from now on. Thanks.

If I wear boots now, it is for ankle protection (from rocks, logs, etc), rather than ankle support.

+1 Andrew.

Mids do not provide ankle support but rather protection to the ankles. The idea that it provides support to the ankle is a myth. In fact, ankle support comes almost entirely from how stable a shoe keeps your arch and heel. If you are feeling stones and ruts under lighter trail shoes v.s. boots, then you may be looking at the wrong shoe. I use Salomon trail runners and the cushioning is diving. I never feel any ruts, stones, etc, with that shoe.

Boots if snow/winter terrain. Shoes for everything else. I have yet to try a pair of Innov-8 shoes. I really want to. I'll have to say, though. I think that I prefer the support of really lightweight nylon hikers over pure trail runners. That said, I have not had a good enough pair of TR's yet. I have a pair of North Face Tyndall now that look like hiking shoes but wear like TR's (light vented) and they are working well.

I don't understand why so many people do not believe that boots provide ankle support. If my boots are loose my ankles hurt. Properly tighten them and they quit hurting. They certainly provide support to my ankles.

What kind of support do your boots provide? Loose boots – can you expand on this?

Your situation is likely unique because you have damaged / weak ankles.

Of course boots provide ankle support. I had switched to boots for a while after a particularly ugly ankle sprain. But I do ankle strengthening and balance exercises and have been able to switch back to trail runners. Trail runners combined with trekking poles give me plenty of support and less weight, but more importantly less blisters. Even with a good fitting pair of boots, I blister more than in a set of good breathable lightweight trail runners.

Footwear can be a very personal thing. I like wearing minimalist shoes, they are like walking in moccasins. I feel EVERYTHING and I like that. Most people would think they are inappropriate because of how little protection they give me. I bet there is some guy out there who hikes everywhere in crocs. My point is, don't be afraid to go outside of the ultralight backpacking norm.

I can appreciate the ankle protection that a high top boot provides though. I don't mean support but protection. On a recent trip I jammed my foot between two rocks. Ouch! And later I kicked over a rock and it smacked right into my ankle. Double ouch.

If you have an injury or weak ankles, then the taller boot will provide support such that you can't move your ankles. However, ankle support is just ankle restriction. It won't provide you a stronger ankle; it will only prevent you from moving a weak one.

Ankle support in a shoe has to do with heel stability, not ankle support. You actually want the ankle to flex sufficiently so that your gait is not compromised. Now a taller upper can allow for less lacing pressure directly over the instep, holding the heel and foot into the heel cup from a better position above that area, and spreading the pressure out over a greater area. True. But it won't provide ankle support as that comes from stiffness around the heel.

Now, if one has weak ankles, assuming a nice stiff heel placement, a higher boot can provide some stability for the ankle. So if you have weak or damaged ankles, then wear a boot. But if you have a means of strengthening your ankles, that is the best way to go about it.

"What kind of support do your boots provide? Loose boots – can you expand on this?

Your situation is likely unique because you have damaged / weak ankles."

The same type of support an ace bandage gives to muscles, tendons and ligaments. Since the boot also resists sideways movement there is support there.

As far as loose, if the upper laces of the boot are not tight enough to provide enough pressure on the leg then my ankle will start to hurt. Walking (power walking as most people refer to it) in low top shoes without a pack also sometimes also hurt. Walking in low top shoes with 15+ lbs will almost always cause my ankle to hurt.

Maybe I do have damaged or weak ankles, don't know. But, I can't see how anyone can claim that "high top" shoes (i.e. boots) to not provide ankle support. You may not need that support (my wife does not), but that does not mean it is not there.

If you have an injury or weak ankles, then the taller boot will provide support such that you can't move your ankles. However, ankle support is just ankle restriction. It won't provide you a stronger ankle; it will only prevent you from moving a weak one.

Ankle support in a shoe has to do with heel stability, not ankle support. You actually want the ankle to flex sufficiently so that your gait is not compromised. Now a taller upper can allow for less lacing pressure directly over the instep, holding the heel and foot into the heel cup from a better position above that area, and spreading the pressure out over a greater area. True. But it won't provide ankle support as that comes from stiffness around the heel.

Now, if one has weak ankles, assuming a nice stiff heel placement, a higher boot can provide some stability for the ankle. So if you have weak or damaged ankles, then wear a boot. But if you have a means of strengthening your ankles, that is the best way to go about it.

+2 on David T’s flexing.
I never looked at it that way, but that’s how it ends up. With a stiff sole, it’s fun walking on scree; it feels like a massage. If it brings excruciating pain then a change of footwear is in order.

I went from boots straight to sandals 8-10 years ago. And I strongly shy away from closed-toe sandals as they are torture for me.
I don’t know if anything can dry faster or breathe better than open toe sandals; which eliminates the athlete’s foot and stench. And, yeah, I get a lot of dirt on my feet. But at the end of the day, my feet, socks, and sandals are clean because I walked through a stream and shook my feet.

Good luck on your footwear choice.

-Barry
The mountains were made for Teva’s