Hiking With Trail Runners In New England

I wore Solomon trail runners for all 4k's in the White Mtns and on Long trail thru hike(28lb max weight). And every other trail i've done in NH.

Ankles are meant to have flexibility, knees are not. When I wear hiking boots the wobble that should be at my ankle gets transferred to my knees and they hurt for days after. No pain when I wear trail shoes.

I find that I step on less painful things with trail shoes because my feet are lighter and my legs get less tired. you can move your feet more quickly and accurately to avoid pointy rocks or whatever. I add a pair of Dirty Girl gaiters to keep the dirt/pine needles out.

Making any change in footwear takes time to adjust to, so i'd work your way up in miles and difficulty as you adjust. your ankles and feet will get stronger as you go.

when my current shoes wear our (which is soon) i'll be getting Sportiva Wildcats.

I hike mainly in the Northeast, and I use trail runners most of the year. They handle the typical rocks and roots very well.

I tend to switch to warmer shoes when it gets either cold or cool and wet. In winter I use hiking boots with some insulation, although my old plastic double boots haven't seen daylight in years.

The toughest conditions is wet and cold. Many years ago I did an early Spring hike in fabric boots. The conditions were mid thirties and melting snow cover, which quickly soaked into my boots. Not fun, and they froze up at night. If I were doing that again with the same boots I'd probably use GoreTex socks between a thin outside liner sock and a thicker inside insulating sock, or maybe just go to a more waterproof/resistant boot.

Really wish I could but without a stiffer soul the bottom of my feet get beat up on sharp edge rocks. Im definitely a tender foot. I also have a problem with my feet sliding forward on down hills and crunching my toes. The mids I wear are fairly light but prevent these issues.

I'm a big believer though in wearing the lightest foot wear your feet can handle. I wish they made a trail runner equivalent of a high top sneaker.

jimmyb

Perhaps this has more to do with the wrong kind of trailrunners then with trailrunners percé.
Because sliding on downhills has never been a problem for me in trailrunners.
And my current pair of trailrunners has a shank in the midsole that is good in acting as a rockplate.

No, I don't know how the terrain is in New England, but I've done 100s of miles in the Alps and Pyrenees, on trail as well off trail, without a problem.

"I wish they made a trail runner equivalent of a high top sneaker."

Salomon do a few of their Trail runners in a High version (XA Pro, X Ultra, Wings Sky)

Adidas Terrex Fast R Mid GTX also.

Dave

It can take some getting used to minimalist trail runners.

I went from stiff sole, elevated heel mid-height runners to minimalist low tops.

I used to roll my ankles a lot and assumed I needed the stiffness and higher tops.

It took a while for my feet to toughen up, but it didn't take much hiking at all to get my ankle reflexes to kick in.

I definitely will never go back to boots and I hike on trails with a high percentage of pointy rocks.

My feet are tougher, healthier and drier. And no blisters or pain.

Heavy stiff shoes waste energy and can contribute to leg fractures.

There are many experts that would disagree, but I know from my personal experience and the experiences of many other hikers.

New England trail builders are definitely a sadistic lot. That being said, unless there is snow on the ground, I do all of my hiking in trail runners. I use Salomon XA Pro 3Ds (the non-GTX version which are much more breathable) and I love them. They are beefier than most trail runners which helps them hold up to the abuse NE trails throw at them. That being said, I have resigned myself to replacing my shoes every 18 months at most (I where them as my primary off-trail footwear as well).

Being fairly new to UL I tried a few different trail runners this past spring/summer, including Asics, Roclite (295), etc and various footbeds.

The one I settled on is Brooks Cascadia. No issues at all using the box-stock footbeds, hiking in areas with lots of rocks, roots and pointy things. On downhills my foot does slide toward the toe box, but the shape for me is just right for distributing the pressure very evenly among all the toes, so it remains very comfortable. I can hike day after day with these shoes with no problems.

I wouldn't say sadistic.. just won't pander to the pack animal union with their switchback demands. ;)

you don't need to go minimalist to get a good trail shoe. my Solomon Comp 5's have plenty of cushion and protection. The LS Wildcats worked for Skurka all through Alaska so I think they will handle the northeast. (he does say to do some preemptive seam seal on sewn edges)

The same with a lot of UL stuff, technique and care goes a long way to foot comfort. Instead of jamming down on every rock on the trail, think like a mtn bike or skier and avoid the painful stuff. There are ways of lacing to keep your feet from sliding forward as much too. I don't find many downhills that i face my toes straight down anyway, i'm usually side stepping.

> Heavy stiff shoes waste energy and can contribute to leg fractures.
> There are many experts that would disagree,

They are not experts, just sheep following the leather boot sales force.
:-)

Cheers

Thanks Roger. You were the person that most influenced my change to light trail runners.

I hike in the Adirondacks whose trails, terrain and climate are similar to that of New Hampshire and Maine. I also wear the Ultra Raptors. I think you'll like them. Their protective enough when I hit rocks, rather than step on them, and they make my feet feel like they're in a Porsche 911 turbo vs. a Lincoln Continental.

I've used various models of INOV-8 for a number of years now and still love the. The Ultra Raptors have a more protective feel to them yet they're ready to go when you summon them.

I also agree with Jake D's analysis.

Edited for spelling

Everone's feet are different so what may fit my feet, may not fit yours and vice versa.

Concerning Inov-8: their Metashank Gen. 3 feels much more protective then their Gen. 2.

I've been very happy with Montrail trail runners. Got me trough 6 days in Rocky Mountain NP this summer without any foot problems at all.

As the OP of this post, I really appreciate all the valuable feedback you've provided. This is exactly what I hoped for.

Changing your shoes means changing how you walk. I am an AMC co-leader and have done a lot of group hikes and backpacks with the "traditional" boot crowd in the White Mountains but use trail runners (my umbrella gets more comments though). On group hikes the people with the stiffest boots and hiking poles seem to slip and slide across the same rocky trail that I hike without a single slip sans hiking poles. I often watch their ankles turn at funny ankles as their hike, catching themselves on their poles every few strides. Their boots are so stiff they can't feel what they're walking on and their mind is concentrating on planting their poles among the rocks and roots instead of where their feet are going.

Instead, in really bouldery trails I look for flattish spots to plant the ball of my foot on. You only need a spot an inch wide about the width of your foot. When it's slick, look for a rock pointing opposite the slope of the trail to put your heel against and your foot won't slide. It takes concentration and balance as well as ankle strength which takes time to develop. Hiking without poles means your foot placement has to count so you are forced to focus on it.

I don't recommend switching from huge boots to floppy trail runners then going for a 15 mile hike. That's a recipe for an injury. Instead use them for short hikes after work for a few months and work up to longer distances to give your ankles time to strengthen your balance develop. Yoga helps tremendously with both and usually has benefits to other common problems like back pain and general injury prevention.

I live in Alaska and spend winters in the Southwest. I backpack in running shoes or trail runners exclusively. I usually wear neoprene socks in AK unless I know for sure my route/trail is generally dry – otherwise I'm in SmartWool socks. I've hiked on and off trail, in rocks, sand, mud, etc. without getting sore feet or ankles. I subscribe to the 1 lb on the feet = 5 lbs on the back philosophy, so I go light on footwear. My favorite hiking shoe is an Asics running shoe.

I did the White Mountains Presidential traverse and the Pemi trails–which are not the easiest trails in the US–this late summer in a pair of Salomon Speedcross. I had never hiked with trail runners and never tried either trail, so everything was new. By way of comparison, I usually use a mid-weight hiking boot (La Sportiva Omega GTX). I had a 35lbs pack that steadily reduced in weight over ten days. Here are my observations:

Pros: My feet felt much better at the end of each day; my knees felt a lot stronger at the end of the hike than usual.(I have a torn patellar ligament in one knee and scar tissue from a fracture in the other, so this is the ultimate litmus test for me). In general I was less tired; no bruising, aching, damaged toe nails, feeling of stepping on hard cement, etc., which was especially remarkable because the shoes were brand new and my hiking partner was aching the entire time–he wore lightweight hiking boots. I only came close to twisting an ankle once–less then usual, to be honest–and it wasn't bad.

Cons: when your step lands in the space between two rocks or on a very uneven surface, your foot will bend, fold, contort, and fit itself to the contours of the trail, and this is painful; the traction on the Speedcross, despite its apparently aggressive sole, was rather slippery and got worse as the days went on and the treads wore down; in general, one must remain more thoughtful with respect to foot placement (but isn't that a good thing, in the end? At least it's better than feeling like you're walking on hammers). The shoes wore down more quickly than the boots. I've had the Omega's for two years and I feel like they're just broken in; the Speedcross have one more serious hike left in them.

In the end, I would probably upgrade to a lightweight hiking shoe or a more robust trail running shoe for the Presidentials (though I got the Speedcross because it advertises itself as aggressive). But given the choice between trail running and hiking boot, I cannot imagine ever going back. The loss of weight on the foot seems to counterbalance the loss of stability. If you're really worried about ankles, why not try a lightweight ankle brace instead. That way you can remove it if you discover it's unnecessary.

>>>>>>>and their mind is concentrating on planting their poles among the rocks and roots instead of where their feet are going.

I think this hits the nail squarely on the head.

When I started using trail runners (after adopting the whole UL philosophy, as well!) last spring, I found that I needed to completely re-evaluate the way I use trekking poles. I hiked with them and without them, noting my hiking speed and stability on varying terrain.

What I discovered is that I find them totally unnecessary for flats and slight downhills, where they in fact actually slow me down a bit, and I use them only occasionally on slight uphills, and often on steep uphills unless they require scrambling. Steep downhills only to reduce impact on knees when making a larger drop over a rock or other obstacle. When the trail gets really rocky – whatever the incline – I find it best to use no poles at all and simply focus on foot placement.

It could be that they just aren't very good or experienced with hiking poles. I hike on flat trail like a mogul skier with my feet going all over the place and the poles tapping along to be used in case i go off balance. Sure certain trails they become less useful and i'll stow them away but I use them a lot.

it all depends on personal preference. i'm definitely not the slow one in the group ;)