My History of Shoes
I can't say that it's a very good history, but perhaps it is informative.
I started my hiking the same way I expect most people do: wearing whatever shoes I had on. I was a tiny tyke and not going very far along well used trail. Really, if that's all you want to do, you shouldn't agonize about the "right footwear" and just pull on something you aren't worried about ruining. For a number of years, that would have been a pair of black, leathery high-tops with laces to the ankle and hook-and-loop at the top. I would wear them until the laces had broken in 3-5 places until I started playing soccer when I started putting holes in them around the toes.
I don't think I had a dedicated pair of hiking boots until I went to camp for a backpacking unit and the packing list said we should have some proper hiking boots. So we went down to the store and I was allowed to pick out whatever I wanted. I came home with a really heavy pair of leather work boots complete with steel toes. I was silly proud of my steel toes and the excessive protection they provided. They fit well into my concept of what was a hiking boot. My parents had a pair each of very expensive waffle-stompers, which these certainly seemed to mimic. Big rounded toe, hooks to grab the laces as they went past the ankle, thick leather everywhere with some squishy bits around the top, even the tread was similar. I stomped around in my faux-waffle-stompers quite happily even after gradually realizing that they might be a little heavier than necessary or comfortable. They got a little blemished and I even managed to dent one of my steel toes, but they were big enough that that was a very minor annoyance. I had lots of lovely room in those shoes.
My next boots were some that looked more like boots today, which is to say more like my high topped sneakers. Cheap and with literal cardboard insoles and they were comfortable enough until they weren't. I had a few others until I got a pair that were pretty much those old work boots except lighter and no steel toes. I wore them out on the inside and came back with a new pair of insoles when I first tried to replace them. I continued to fail to replace them a few more times until I realized that they were men's boots and I was trying shoes that were too small. My feet are 8.5 and the boots were 9, a half size bigger, as most will recommend. After that realization, I got some boots that were big enough and weren't sloppy in the heel. They were still cheap boots from Big-5. I did once try on every boot in the Berkeley REI while in college and every boot in the Arcadia REI in grad school, but they all had something wrong with them. If I was going to get boots with something wrong with them, I'd rather do so at $25 each rather than $250.
My last pair of boots that got significant use were a pair of Salomon 3D Fastpacker Mid GTX. I'd finally found a pair of boots that was acceptable on my feet in a pair of Salomon 4D 3 GTX but still didn't want to spend the money on them, so jumped when I saw these other, lighter Salomon's for $100. They saw me through crossing Snowmass Creek, among many other grand adventures. I eventually managed to wear them out, but I was mostly in trail runners when I had them.
I've forgotten what exactly triggered my first purchase of trail runners. I suspect it was my knees. They hurt. They always hurt. My knees have been really good at hurting since I was 7 years old and decided it was a bad idea to run down hills. Therefore, I did stop trying to shock my knees to death early on, but I was still getting tweaks to my knees every time I stepped wrong in my boots. Even with mid-height (my favorite) boots, stepping on ground that is other than flat means transferring some of that sideways bend to the knee. Knees don't bend sideways. Ankles are supposed to do that. There's nothing wrong with my ankles. Why would I not be expecting them to do what they are made to do? Especially when that motion is necessary. So that is a motivation for something low top.
I also expected to get more toe space out of going to trail runners. When I got my first pair of running shoes in high school, the person dressed as a referee explained that I should have room for my toes to splay happy and free and so I should press down firmly and make sure there was the room to spread in there and I wasn't bumping the tops. I came away with some Asics Gels that never felt bad. The next pair were the same ones. Oddly, when I bumped into the guy attempting 37 mile days southbound on the John Muir Trail, he was wearing those same Asics Gels.
I was a bit experimental at first. I got a pair of Vibram FiveFingers KomodoSport LS, but they weren't really to hike in. I wasn't too happy with hiking in them when I did. I ordered some Vivobarefoot Breatho Trail shoes online, since I really couldn't find anything in person. They're more very thin things and they warned I shouldn't go very far in them at first, so of course I hit the trail for 16 miles. It was flat and generally sandy and my feet held up fine. I tore off multiple "lugs" so they weren't holding up to actual use. Still, these sorts of shoes have been interesting to use although I really don't want to feel everything on the trail. I particularly don't want to feel the sharp bits. Still, these kind of thin shoes don't seem to leave my feet particularly sore.
The first ones I got seriously for hiking was a pair of GoLite XT90, also ordered online. They were definitely solid, just a little too solid in the too tall ankle cup which dug into my ankle. I then ordered a wild selection of three. The Montrail Rogue Racer was wholly forgettable and I have. The Treksta Edict was a very unique shape. They claimed to have taken molds of thousands of feet to make something that would fit anyone. It's possible that it didn't fit anyone, but I did get a comment from a pair of people who were jealous I had some still so long after they'd gone out of business. (They seem to still be in business, though. The current Edict is a very different shoe from the closeout I got in 2014. The toe shape has toned down a little.) They were another thin shoe but had lugs that worked even though they were short. The winner, however, was decidedly the Inov-8 Roclite 268.
I wanted that running shoe room, but with lug-like tread so I wouldn't go slipping off the trail. The Roclite 268 had pretty good toe space and they stick to both dirt and rocks better than most using big, square, solid lugs. I ordered two more pairs, in 10 for day hiking instead of 10.5 for backpacking, and they had a narrow and pointy foot shape because they were from the next year along. They were still better than the boots because they were soft. Still, they were so narrow that I would sometimes want to remove my little toe and, if I'm being honest, probably half of the next one. There's just no room for those toes.
A pair of Topo Athletic Oterro caught my eye. They were definitely a good shape for my feet. The sole didn't measure up because it didn't stick well to rocks. The uppers weren't solid enough either. They were really light weight. They still got some use as river shoes because they don't take up much water and got some extensive miles combined with neoprene socks on one soggy Colorado trip. The main shoes on that trip were still those original Inov-8 Roclite 268. Those first ones were so very nice.
I got some Inov-8 Roclite again. These were numbered 280 and they were getting worse on my little toe and wore out faster than the 268. Chips in the fabric were visible on the first hike and the sole wore down even faster. When I went past a shop, I actually stopped to try out some of what is available now, particularly those two that are the most popular with the long hikers. I sent back the Hoka One One with extreme prejudice for not being my foot shaped. I ended up with Altra Lone Peak 4.5 on the first go in Albuquerque, which weren't perfect at first and I put holes in them at around 200 miles, but my feet were never sore in them.
I tried some more in Flagstaff and actually let the guy measure my feet. Although I'd decided a year before to stop messing around with 10 and only get 10.5 with thoughts about 11 (but Lone Peak was loose in the heel at that size), he said I was still 8.5. All the way to 9 in my usual sock weight. He brought out a pair of 9 and I felt like my toes were curled up to fit inside even on my smaller foot. I'd say he was accidently measuring me on the men's scale, but my foot really is a little less than 10 inches long.
And the search goes on. At least my knees mostly don't hurt anymore. I still baby them on the downhills.
Liked this? Interesting? Click the three bars at the top left for the menu to read more or subscribe!
Posts
Comments
One thing is you really might consider investing in Tevas for those knee deep or more stream crossings. I've been reading about some nervous moments of choosing between having wet shoes for the rest of the hike, turning back, or too-sketchy rock hops.
I can only remember one actual turning back once, and when I think about Patrick Creek now, I suspect I was being silly. It was particularly cold that evening and I was wearing full boots, but I'm sure the choppy looking creek would have been only knee high. Full boots are a bit much when wet.
I've been looking at some possible river crossing shoes. Tevas or other sandals aren't high on my list because of some experience with feet cramping when cold. Neoprene with a sole, preferably over the ankle, seems like a good plan. Nude feet have a tendency to get pinched by rocks, so I worry about the very soft shoe. I've found some odd socks with soles. Some are just glued on bits of plastic, but there's a hiking sock that claims the new version will go for 600 miles. I go back and forth worrying about if they stick well to wet rocks because I've recently been hitting crossings that don't get enough traffic to scrape away the algae. I hadn't realized before that trails have their ways of establishing even in the creeks. It seems like nothing is capable of sticking in the low traffic areas. The fisheries guys have felt bottomed shoes for wading for temperature gauges or walking the creek counting fish. Those are heavy, but maybe I could put some felt replacement soles on some neoprene socks? Or other felt source?
Anyway, I am prone to not wanting to stop and change shoes, too. I did manage to stop and take off my socks when I got to Blue Creek, but they didn't go on again until the next morning. My shoes were mostly dry by the evening. I'm getting by just splashing right in.
I'm a typical modern western human, in that my feet are poorly adapted for walking barefoot over rough ground. I've done a handful of stream crossings barefoot, but I don't want to attempt anything difficult that way, too much likelihood of hurting myself. In other parts of the world where people grow up running around everywhere barefoot, they develop very different foot anatomy. A better idea, really, as long as you're not walking around the city with its broken glass and rusty nails.
I was really only planning on going to Bear Skull and continued on to North Fork since it seemed like more logical stopping point. It was already afternoon and turn around time then and I got back faster than expected. In hindsight since the leaves were getting better, it might have been nice to continue on to do a lot more of the trail. If I want to go, I'll get there, even if I moan about having wet feet after.
It's surprising how little it takes to make tender, constant shoe wearing feet sufficiently protected to not shout with pain. It looks like I should avoid felt bottoms for worries about invasive species. Rubber bottomed neoprene is easier to find in a light weight package anyway.
You can start toughening up your feet any time you like. I know three people who decided to go full barefoot hiking. Be warned, it is a long road. A little creek crossing here and there isn't enough to do the toughening.