Considering Minimalist Footwear for Backpacking

After a rather protracted period of indecisiveness, few well-fitting options, and reading article and forum post stacking up in favor of minimalist footwear I've taken the plunge and picked up a pair of Altra Lone Peaks yesterday. It'll be really interesting to see how things shape up and I'm willing to give this whole "sneakers in the backcountry" thing the ol' college try.

I have a few concerns and have gone with a shoe that I feel offers just enough up-rated burliness with a rock guard and adequate underfoot padding to deal with my heavy 225lb frame. Ultimately if wet feet doesn't present some unforeseen sack of problems I can see this shoe choice as, at the least, a really good selection for the southern US 3 season hiking I do. Where I still have questions are around sudden weather changes of snow and how I deal with it when I won't be spending enough time in those sorts of conditions as others, and as such whatever system I go with will be considerably less tested. We'll see I guess.

Ultimately if I lose a few toes or have a bad time, I doubt my shoe choice will be result in my demise, but maybe even saying that is tempting fate.

FWIW, I used the Lone Peaks this year on a week-long trip, and was overjoyed at the successful conclusion of a 3-year search for backpacking footwear. I wear minimalist shoes on the weekend, run exclusively (up to marathons) in Five Fingers, but was not happy with minimalist shoes on the trails. And it wasn't because of my weight or my pack weight. It just seemed like the more minimalist shoes like the Trail Gloves and Stem Origins beat up my feet. As people have noted, it all depends on your personal situation, but the Lone Peaks work perfectly for me. I hope they work as well for you.

Alexander, check out this article: http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/fast_light_shoulder_season_footwear_tips.html

I can attest to Dave's suggestion for neoprene socks. They work wonders (as long as you're moving).

They may be overkill for the Southern U.S. (do you hike mostly in the Hill Country, or head west to NM or east to Appalachia?), but if that's what you're worried about, they can get the job done.

@Glen: Yeah I really felt like they were a good blend of minimalist but with serious thought put into the shortcomings of simply putting lugged soles on a minimalist shoe. They really addressed the big pitfalls in my mind relating to padding, ruggedness, and breathability without sacrificing durability. I'm going to be on my feet all day tomorrow (sadly, not hiking, but outside in the finally-cool Texas weather) so we'll see how they do. I even brought a pair of my hiking socks just to see how my real setup will work.

@Clayton: Thanks for the link. I read that article just before buying the Lone Peaks and it definitely contributed to me taking the plunge down the minimal footwear rapids. I'll likely be hiking mostly in hill country until next spring, although it's looking pretty promising for a Thanksgiving weekend trip to Big Bend in a few weeks. I have family in the mid-atlantic so will at some point find myself back that direction, but I'd actually prefer to start branching up and out to the west since I've never been west of hill country, save for one trip to Portland OR (to not do stuff outside). So I'm hoping to build up a pretty versatile setup with neoprene and/or GTX socks. The Lone Peaks are roomy so I doubt I'll have any fit issues. It's really just down to dealing with the mental idea of having wet feet.

I think you'll be surprised how fast you get used to it. As long as your feet are warm and don't stay wet for days, most people are fine.

Just keep getting out and keep trying things so that you know what works for you. That's more important than any gear article (though, those definitely help you along the way). Hiking and backpacking changed my life, dramatically for the better. That's what matters far more than this frustrating couple of weeks on BPL.

"As long as your feet are warm and don't stay wet for days, most people are fine."
While this is true, it's something that people shouldn't assume to be true for themselves. Some peoples feet prune up a lot more than other peoples feet, which means increased susceptibility to blisters etc. My feet prune up a lot more than my wife's, so I blister up quite readily in extended wet foot hiking, while she is fine.

"My feet prune up a lot more than my wife's, so I blister up quite readily in extended wet foot hiking, while she is fine."

Start walking barefoot more often. Of course not practical if one works near the Arctic Circle :)

I loved the article. This subject needs to be discussed.

But I disagree with the conclusion that negative heel drop is good for backpackers. I believe some small positive heel drop has merit. Here's why: The pack moves our center of mass backwards; we would fall backwards without compensation. So a backpacker leans forward to balance the pack. This stretches the calf muscles and achilles tendon. A small positive heel reduces this strain, returning ankle flexion to normal.

Other relevant facts:
Efficient runners don't heel strike, but efficient walks DO.
Pack weight increases the need for protection from pointy rocks.

These factors combine to argue for a slightly more protective, 2-4mm HIGHER heeled shoe for backpacking than for running.

My personal experience supports this conclusion. I run in fairly minimal shoes, but choose a slightly more supportive shoe for backpacking.

Flyin' Brian

I've done packing over sharp glacial moraine with heavy loads (think packing a couple weeks of food + a 10 month old child + a packraft, etc…) with the Inov-8 bare grips, for two solid months (though not super long days).

My legs never hurt once (despite not having worn them much before), aside from occasional briefly painful steps if I hit a rock wrong. And I don't wear shoes like this at home all the time – rubber boots make more sense for casual outings much of the time where I live.

What did get hurt was the shoes themselves – on the sharp rocks. If my husband wasn't good at darning tears with spectra thread they wouldn't have lasted 3 weeks (as it is, they're still wearable and I hiked in them all summer).

The other problem was cold. I did stuff a few pairs of socks in, but as fall turned to winter, walking long distances in snow or crossing slushy streams was still really cold in those. Granted those things is pretty cold in trail runners too, but I think the lack of insulation on the bottom does make it somewhat worse.

Even with all that, I'm still a fan. I use the Inov-8s for hikes in non-snow season, and especially if I have dirt/vegetation as a surface rather than moraine rubble. Will probably use them on a multi-month coastal expedition this summer – but I'll buy a new pair.

Vivobarefoot makes some durable, minimalist footwear. That have very puncture resistant soles. You can get the vivobarefoot ras in all leather or the trails (haven't used them personally yet) in a really tough, leather like synthetic material. Some of their shoes are actually sewn to the sole like a pair of moccasins and not laminated. That leaves room for long term repairs. Like most footwear, durable usually means slow drying.

I could recite my conversations with a podiatrist/lifetime runner, or with a shoe designer, or with a pedorthotist, or numerous PTs, or I could paraphrase the gait cycle and biomechanics I studied in physical therapy school, or I could talk about all of peer reviewed publications I have read trying to learn more about minimalist or barefoot running.

At the end of the day an individual's own personal anecdotal experiences will trump whatever I could possibly say to them. Ironically when it comes to barefoot/minimalist endeavors the correct answer is to trust your self and do what is right for you. Build up slowly if you want to make the switch without putting yourself at increased risk of injury, talk to those who have already done so, and trial it for yourself before jumping on either philosophical bandwagon and becoming preachy.

It amazes me how often the older (no offense… in fact reverence) members seem to give some of the best advice. Here is a quote from one such wise member: "At the end of the day I think we need to wear what works for us and not let any flavor of Kool Aid sway our selection. However, it pays to keep an open mind and try new things. Remember you didn't learn to walk in a day. Adapting to a new style of shoe may take time."

Don't buy into the hype of either side of the barefoot argument. Consider what you expect to be doing and determine what footwear best fits your needs at the time. I don't need insulation or extreme tread while my fingertips hike along the Qwerty Trail which is why my footwear of choice for this endeavor is barefoot.

Thank you Ryan for the review of the shoes, and congrats that your arch made such a comeback!

"Efficient runners don't heel strike, but efficient walks DO." Really? Where did you hear this? I have always read that the natural way to walk was front or mid foot striking. I wear 3mm vivobarefoots without the insole and I have always walked on front or midfoot striked unless taking long strides to step over something.

Curious as to where: "I have always read that the natural way to walk was front or mid foot striking."

Here is a good place to do reading on the natural way to walk: http://courses.washington.edu/anatomy/KinesiologySyllabus/GaitPhasesKineticsKinematics.pdf

Keep in mind running is very different than walking. A book or article one may read about barefoot running would not translate well to walking and even less so to hiking and even less so to backpacking.

Mountain rescue statistics for the UK show that lower leg injuries are the most common. It seems to me that the lower the heel is to uneven ground the less leverage is available to twist the ankle. Conversely, high heels foster twisted ankles. Wide heels may also be bad. I suffered more twists in my old Salomon boots with a high well cushioned heel than in my inov8 fell shoes, despite the shoes having less ankle support. This could be for a number of reasons: The feel of the ground beneath my feet may improve my reaction time to the beginning of a twist; less cushioning may encourage me to place my feet more carefully; and wearing shoes may increase the strength of my ankles. I now risk running downhill in deep heather and fording rocky stream beds where I don't know what my foot is about to hit… so far without accident. However, running on rough terrain is very different to walking. It encourages a rapid transference of weight from one foot to the other, momentum carrying me along. On the other hand, walking tends to be from one stable foot placement to the next, fully loading each foot in turn and perhaps increasing the risks of a twist.
My conclusion: thick heels in boots or shoes increase the risk of ankle twist and sensitivity to the ground reduces the risk.
Obviously, other factors may also effect your choice.

@Andy I agree with you 100%. That's one of my biggest motivations for going to lower profile shoes. Additionally, if you use less shoe on a regular basis, the soft tissues that support the ankle strengthen.

> My conclusion: thick heels in boots or shoes increase the risk of ankle twist and
> sensitivity to the ground reduces the risk.
+1

Cheers

+2. I damaged one of my ankle many years ago (never go ice skating when drunk)and it seems to have been a bit weakened subsequently. Low profile shoes have been a great help to me. I do get some funny looks in New Zealand in my Inovs, as big boots are seen by most as essential to safe tramping here.

The NZ culture of big boots for safe tramping is a funny one. There is a similar culture here in the Western US mountains during the winter when you're off trail, with or w/o snowshoes.

But this is a case where minimalist options are limited – a boot with a soft cuff that is high enough to mate well with a high gaiter, has an aggressive lugged tread for decent traction on steeper snow and mud and tundra, a waterproof liner, and of course all the little bits that make a nice "minimalist" shoe like a low heel, some cushion, big toe box, etc.

In our fall courses, where we trek over snow and in very wet/cold conditions on most of them, the overwhelming majority of shoes we see are the Inov-8 288 GTX's. There simply is no second place, and no other shoe comes to mind as a standout selection.

We've used and recommended this "boot" (and the previous Inov-8 GTX para boot which is no longer made) for this purpose and although it's not perfect for a wintry hiking shoe (it could use a little more insulation in the sole, a little more stiffness for sidehilling), it's darn close to an ideal minimalist winter shoe.

I bring this up to say that I think there is a lot of room for development in the minimalist waterproof "boot" market, and I think the Inov-8 288 GTX is the benchmark thus far, there's just too much unoccupied space between this and, say, the Cadion, which is a far cry from a "barefoot" approach.

Ultralight Backpacking Boot Camp, October 30, 2012, Anaconda-Pintlar Wilderness, Montana

I would really like to see some manufactures come out with synthetic, mukluk style boots for winter. A very soft sole with a loose upper that is secured with cord. You could you layer in as many socks or liners as you wanted and if it was a little loose, you aren't going to have a rock hard toe box smashing your toes with every step.

Looks like the Innov8 288 still has the narrow toe box. That could be a deal breaker for wide footed people like me. Last time I did serious hiking in snow I just used waterproof socks in my trail runners. It wasn't perfect but better then shoes that don't fit.

> It wasn't perfect but better then shoes that don't fit.
+1!

You have never experienced real agony until you have experienced frozen feet in under-sized shoes in the snow.

Cheers

Has anyone played around in the Vivobarefoot Off Road High? It looks like it would knock off a few of the wintry requirements while blending a minimalist's ethos. Considering it's all leather, waterproof, with an ample toe box, I'd say it would be a pretty decent upgrade over a trail runner. If it offers a little extra support by virtue of the hightop that would certainly be nice as well.

I think the only thing that would turn me off is the thickness, or rather the lack of, in the sole. I dig zero-drop and flexibility but the soles on the Vivobarefoots could be pushing it for a heavier guy like myself.

Anyhow, link….. http://www.vivobarefoot.com/us/mens/off-road-hi-mens-13.html

I have never used the off roads, but I have been wearing my aquas hiking for a while now. If the off roads are similar to the aquas, I would say they are on the minimal end of minimalist shoes. You are going to brutalize your feet in them if you aren't used to minimalist shoes. They aren't like sneakers, they are more like traditional moccasins.

.

I've been running in the Altra Instincs for about 6 mons. I feel stronger and more efficient. I did have some calf fatigue the first couple weeks but as I got used to the new stride and got stronger the fatigue went away. I find the Instinct extremely comfortable. In the past, I've always cranked on the laces of my running shoes to get them as tight as possible. I leave the instincts loose and with the wide toe box my feet can stretch out and breath. I was a heel striker and these shoes have forced me to balance my body over my core, shorten my stride and land on a bent knee. As a result I feel like a stronger runner and can run longer distances with considerably less knee pain (even with ACL reconstruction in April 2011).

In fact I liked the Instinct so much, I thought I'd try the Lone Peaks for the trail and was not disappointed. I had been a full leather boot hiker since I started hiking in high school so I was pessimistic. I was concerned with foot fatigue from the softer sole. I was concerned with the lack of ankle support. I was nervous about the fact that they were not water proof (even though my feet would end up moist or wet due to sweat or small leaks in my leather hikers).

My first hike in the Lone Peaks was an over night in NH's Whites in June with a fairly heavy pack (28ish lbs). All of my concerns were for not. I loved the weight of these shoes and could easy feel the difference compared to my leathers. The lack of ankle support and zero drop forced me to shorten my stride and concentrate on each foot strike which I believe made me a more careful and efficient hiker. The oversized foot box kept my feet feeling comfortable and not crammed and tight. This was especially noticeable on the downhills. When the shoe got wet they seemed to dry quickly simply from the heat of my feet and the airy boot. The sole is grippy and aggressive.

This past October I took them out again for a three night trip also in NH with a slightly heavier pack. On the morning of day 2 we woke up to a half inch of snow. I thought for sure I made a mistake at shoe choice. I decided to wear a pair of Smart Wool heavy hikers figuring they would be warmer for the unexpected low temps. The Lone Peaks were wet before we left the campsite and, although the temps hovered around 30 and the shoes were wet, my feet were warm and comfy all day. 8 miles and 3 peaks later back at the campsite I put the shoes next to the campfire and they were dry in an hour. I had no issues with footing or lack of ankle support.

Now if I were do it again I would bring my leathers. That's too close of a call for me and i would rather be wearing boots and not sneakers if it's going to be cold and wet. But the Lone Stars performed great and only increased my confidence in them.

There is no doubt in my mind that different people find different shoe types work for them due to differences in foot types, gait, body type, etc. Although it's still fairly early (less than 100 miles) I think that I have found my 3 season hiker.