.....As with skis a quiver is the answer (all of which should fit your feet)......
+1 to that
I was just digging my Scarpa Zodiacs out and realised I'd left my new ones back in the UK
What was weird was that I loved those (really stiff soles), and wore the soles down so bought a new pair, exactly the same size etc and now I get issues with movement that creates blisters under the hard skin of the heel.
And interesting to see that video of the Altra shoe and how that guy raves about it, and I really like, as I've already mentioned my Altra King MT 1.5 trail shoes which seemed to tick all the boxes.
Anyway, all interesting stuff, especially as only started hiking again yesterday, but like I say, hope to get back running again as can cover more terrain.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
I think the boot/shoe choice depends mainly on the terrain and particularly if you're on a path. Pretty much any path should be OK in shoes, some off-path stuff is also OK but in unstable, rocky, scree type stuff there is always the chance you'll get a knock on the ankle no matter how agile you are. OK, it's unlikely to halt your progress but it can be painful.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
@Ed_sec, even with the best soles that feckin loose scree on steep paths can see your leg shoot out from you.
That's why I like running downhill as I tend to concentrate more on foot placement looking for more solid landing points to pivot off as it were.
Though I'm not too sure what surface I prefer as last year I ran up and down the Granon on the road (10km up 1,100m) and legs were screaming on the way back down, whereas trail running descents you're forever changing tack and trying to avoid going over the handlebars
Note to self - must start writing a date inside the boot and change them after a decade or so rather than wait until I'm a lost sole(s)/soul on the trail.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
I had a similar story about boots coming to grief too.
I was on the Selvaggio Blu a pretty hardcore* hike in Sardinia with a number of Mountain Guides, it was a busman's holiday and they thought they'd bring some punters along to see how they'd fare
The terrain was limestone and no real paths, that was the fun and challenge for the guides as back then there were no GPX routes or even maps of the route, just the occasional splodge of blue paint on a rock.
I was wearing my trusty leather Brasher boots and within a couple of days the sole started coming away, now I put that down to walking the dogs in them on the beach at low tide and salt trashing the stitching, and then soon after Bettina's, a guide from Zermat, her boot failed too.
The limestone was sharp and jagged and just ripped the boots to pieces.
Found this old video of that!
*climbing, abseiling, wild camping and more
God I've done some stupid shite in my time!
On that trip I was being rappeled down off a cliff with some trees around, and I had my sleep mat strapped on to my pack vertically, and ended up with a branch stuck up through it, with me stuck as well!
I then dangling there had to take my big pack of to free myself, in the process I dropped the feckin thing, and it nigh on rolled off the feckin cliff into the sea, passport wallet everything, luckily it stopped just short of going over the edge
@Weathercam, I was similar - an avid boot user for years, but then when I started planning some long hikes, I discovered that the majority of people were using some form of running shoe. Chris Townsend (and many others - Ray Jardine has even more aggressive views) have observed that stability and ankle support come from the footbed and heal cup, something that tends to be very well designed in good running shoes. The flappy soft bit of leather around the ankle in a hiking boot won't even support a bag of sugar, let alone the force of a walker slipping onto it.
On long US trails (PCT, AT, JMT etc.) it's amazing the number of boot wearers who end up hiking in their camp shoes (I met someone who hiked over 100 miles of the JMT in her crocs, after her boots gave her such bad blisters she couldn't wear them). On the PCT (2700 miles) I'd guess that maybe 25% of people started in hiking boots, but almost nobody finished in them - they switched to trainers or quit.
I have a lot of sympathy with your points about trail running shoes and I'm someone who has managed to get some nasty ankle sprains in very inconvenient places over the years. I like innov-8 shoes and have had a selection over the years - they inspire a lot of confidence. What I realised about my ankle sprains is that they happened when I was looking ahead, route finding, WHILE MOVING, on rough terrain. I've never managed to sprain an ankle while paying close attention to where I am placing my feet . The implication of this is pretty simple and its not about shoe/boot choice!!!
That said, I'm surprised that you think running shoe footbeds tend to be good. I've routinely junked them and replaced them with superfeet for the last 15 years which provide much better heel support. I use superfeet in running shoes and hiking boots.
The one type of shoe where footbeds do seem to be surprisingly good is in "approach shoes" - sort of walking shoe / trainer / climbing shoe hybrids.
All that said, I still prefer boots when I'm carrying heavy loads and the terrain is gnarly.
I have just (I mean yesterday!) replaced by long-serving zamberlain 3 season leather hiking boots (well they are in semi-retirement) with a much lighter boot - La Sportiva TX-4 mid - it's basically an approach shoe with a some ankle protection.
Went out for a walk yesterday and I really like them - superlight, very snug and supportive - great heel fit and feel quite cushioned.
I went for sportivas because I have some of their light mountaineering boots (Trango Tower) which I love the fit of (quite slim around the ankle).
Coming back to the OP - think it is really hard to generalise about brands and models without knowing what the exact use is and what feet you have!
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Anyone worrying about their ankles – get yourself some poles (ski poles will do) and use them on any terrain that isn't smooth. They turn you into a quadruped and then the same three-points-of-contact rule from climbing can be applied, and stability is improved no end. They also speed you up a lot on rough terrain, as you rarely have to adjust a foot placement – the poles will hold you and you just carry on.
After all it is free
After all it is free
jedster wrote:
.....All that said, I still prefer boots when I'm carrying heavy loads and the terrain is gnarly...
That's a good point about a heavy pack and wearing boots.
And @Scarlet, good point about the poles.
I only commented to the OH yesterday whilst going up a steep path how I could feel my legs when compared to skinning, which I've done a fair bit of recently, and then I realised that I was not using any poles to help me
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
@jedster, for me, I find that the manufacturer insoles work very well and are increasingly designed as part of the whole "system", so changing insole risks upsetting the balance. My latest running shoes have the insole integrated into them so it's not even possible to change, which suggests most top runners (of which I'm definitely not one!) don't, since almost everyone competes in the Nike same shoes at present.
I've tried poles a few times - for me they don't work (I find it too much to have to process 4 "legs"; my brain maxes out at 2!) but I recognise I'm in the minority. They must help, because a sadistic ultramarathon I used to do, labelled them as "cheating sticks" and banned them
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
So you are all successfully making me want multiple pairs of boots
Something lighter and lower for spring summer dryer less challenging walks and something leather mid height for winter or wetter walks.
Liking scarpa vortex for low and scarpa ranger. Anyone know if the soles are easy to replace or renew with custom beds?
The salewa mountain trainer mid gtx and wildfire also look good options.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Quote:
The salewa mountain trainer mid gtx
@Lost in the trees, Brilliant imv, come with a quality insole, with removable damper sole if preferred. I'm into my second pair of both trainer and boots, but still my initial pairs (both 7-8 years old and worn a great deal keep on going and too good to discard).
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Lost in the trees wrote:
I'm a narrow fit personally.
I've narrow feet too, find that the italian brands fit better e.g. La Sportiva & Salewa. There are also others e.g. "Zamberlan" & "Asolo" that I haven't tried yet.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Fri 9-04-21 13:35; edited 1 time in total
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
*disclaimer: I haven't read the rest of the thread. Deal with it:D
If it's any use now and OP hasn't already got booties.... It's kinda handy to go to somewhere like Go Outdoors etc where they stock the whole range from £40 crap to £500+ masterpieces (or at least, they did when I bought my boots there). You'll get a good idea of where your line of worth spending the extra money sits, what the extra money gets you, and how well various boots at that price level fit you. If you're likely to get into some winter stuff, crampon approval is a good thing but doesn't happen until you start spending a bit more.
I ended up at around the £250 mark, with some Meindl boots, rated on their website for C1 type crampons, which is very handy when I feel like suffering for fun in a Snowdonian/Cumbrian winter.
But yeah, like I imagine everyone else has said, get the ones that fit you best. Don't be scared to ask for 3 sizes of each boot you're considering. Most shoe sales folk in these big name stores are quite happy to be taken away from whatever other menial task their corporate overlords have lined up for as long as possible. Probably*.
Even better if you try them all on, find the one that fits, and then go buy it cheaper online. That's their favourite thing by a mile. Trust me, I've imagined the hell of working in retail, so I'm very qualified to speak on the matter.
*actually, genuinely do do this. You never know what that perfect half size up or down will do for your feet in yers to come.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
jjams82 wrote:
*disclaimer: I haven't read the rest of the thread. Deal with it:D
You seriously expect people to read your long response while openly admitting you couldn't be öarsed to read theirs?
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
jjams82 wrote:
*disclaimer: I haven't read the rest of the thread. Deal with it:D
If it's any use now and OP hasn't already got booties.... It's kinda handy to go to somewhere like Go Outdoors etc where they stock the whole range from £40 crap to £500+ masterpieces (or at least, they did when I bought my boots there). You'll get a good idea of where your line of worth spending the extra money sits, what the extra money gets you, and how well various boots at that price level fit you. If you're likely to get into some winter stuff, crampon approval is a good thing but doesn't happen until you start spending a bit more.
I ended up at around the £250 mark, with some Meindl boots, rated on their website for C1 type crampons, which is very handy when I feel like suffering for fun in a Snowdonian/Cumbrian winter.
But yeah, like I imagine everyone else has said, get the ones that fit you best. Don't be scared to ask for 3 sizes of each boot you're considering. Most shoe sales folk in these big name stores are quite happy to be taken away from whatever other menial task their corporate overlords have lined up for as long as possible. Probably*.
Even better if you try them all on, find the one that fits, and then go buy it cheaper online. That's their favourite thing by a mile. Trust me, I've imagined the hell of working in retail, so I'm very qualified to speak on the matter.
*actually, genuinely do do this. You never know what that perfect half size up or down will do for your feet in yers to come.
On crampon compatibility - it's obviously good if you need it! But if you don't then you are getting extra stiffness and cost (and generally weight too) which are negatives if you are actually going to be summer trail walking.
When I was in my teens I could only afford one pair of mountain footwear so went for some C1 compatible boots. These were a good COMPROMISE but they were sub-optimally heavy and stiff for summer and not as good as having C2 compatibility in winter.
Unless you are on a tight budget I'd get some 3 season non-crampon compatible boots and something else for winter (or summer alpine) if and when you need that.
My summer alpine boots (C2 compatible) are actually nice and light and I used them on a long hike in the Brecon Beacons when I first got them to test them out. They were fine but the stiffness means your stride is not as efficient or natural as it would be in non-crampon compatible boots.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Scarlet wrote:
Anyone worrying about their ankles – get yourself some poles (ski poles will do) and use them on any terrain that isn't smooth. They turn you into a quadruped and then the same three-points-of-contact rule from climbing can be applied, and stability is improved no end. They also speed you up a lot on rough terrain, as you rarely have to adjust a foot placement – the poles will hold you and you just carry on.
I've used poles at times but now don't bother unless I'm carrying a heavy pack descending steep ground or on loose scree or snow.
I'm firmly of the view that using poles prevents you from acquiring the skills to move in balance across rough terrain - they are a crutch that means you don't need to use your core muscles and feel to keep your weight centred over your feet.
It's better to get the foot placement right first time than use a pole to bail out your errors. Once you have the skills you can skip from rock to rock -"mountain goating" as my wife puts it.
But acquiring those skills requires time and miles in the mountains - probably best done when you are young. If you are getting more into mountain walking later in life then poles are probably the pragmatic option.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
snowdave wrote:
@jedster, for me, I find that the manufacturer insoles work very well and are increasingly designed as part of the whole "system", so changing insole risks upsetting the balance. My latest running shoes have the insole integrated into them so it's not even possible to change, which suggests most top runners (of which I'm definitely not one!) don't, since almost everyone competes in the Nike same shoes at present.
I've tried poles a few times - for me they don't work (I find it too much to have to process 4 "legs"; my brain maxes out at 2!) but I recognise I'm in the minority. They must help, because a sadistic ultramarathon I used to do, labelled them as "cheating sticks" and banned them
I think insoles SHOULD be designed as part of the system and I am seeing some improvement but the ones that have come in my recent innov-8 and assics shoes are still pathetic thin shapeless things compared to superfeet. Like I said, my sportiva approach boots (and a pair of scarpa approach shoes that I have) do have much more substantial and better engineered insoles - they are both a dense rubber foam a bit like sorbothane - and I haven't replaced those. Superfeet have a deep heel cup and are very supportive but they are not soft and plush. It felt like the approach shoes/boots had been designed to work with a cushioned insole.
Hopefully things are changing and the general quality of standard insoles is improving.
That said, it hasn't really happened in ski boots has it? I imagine nearly all of us use either a custom insole or superfeet type aftermarket insoles in ski boots.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
jedster wrote:
Scarlet wrote:
Anyone worrying about their ankles – get yourself some poles (ski poles will do) and use them on any terrain that isn't smooth. They turn you into a quadruped and then the same three-points-of-contact rule from climbing can be applied, and stability is improved no end. They also speed you up a lot on rough terrain, as you rarely have to adjust a foot placement – the poles will hold you and you just carry on.
I've used poles at times but now don't bother unless I'm carrying a heavy pack descending steep ground or on loose scree or snow.
I'm firmly of the view that using poles prevents you from acquiring the skills to move in balance across rough terrain - they are a crutch that means you don't need to use your core muscles and feel to keep your weight centred over your feet.
It's better to get the foot placement right first time than use a pole to bail out your errors. Once you have the skills you can skip from rock to rock -"mountain goating" as my wife puts it.
But acquiring those skills requires time and miles in the mountains - probably best done when you are young. If you are getting more into mountain walking later in life then poles are probably the pragmatic option.
Interesting re poles.
Contrary to this view, one of our local (Austrian) physios suggested that using poles is absolutely the best method for hiking etc. His view was the the human skeleton benefits immensely from the counter movements between upper/lower body. It’s also far more likely one sees hikers right across the age/gender spectrum using poles over here. Obviously hiking is a major thing in Austria and I guess they may understand a thing or two about how best to maximise the benefits of it.
Anyone worrying about their ankles – get yourself some poles (ski poles will do) and use them on any terrain that isn't smooth. They turn you into a quadruped and then the same three-points-of-contact rule from climbing can be applied, and stability is improved no end. They also speed you up a lot on rough terrain, as you rarely have to adjust a foot placement – the poles will hold you and you just carry on.
I've used poles at times but now don't bother unless I'm carrying a heavy pack descending steep ground or on loose scree or snow.
I'm firmly of the view that using poles prevents you from acquiring the skills to move in balance across rough terrain - they are a crutch that means you don't need to use your core muscles and feel to keep your weight centred over your feet.
It's better to get the foot placement right first time than use a pole to bail out your errors. Once you have the skills you can skip from rock to rock -"mountain goating" as my wife puts it.
But acquiring those skills requires time and miles in the mountains - probably best done when you are young. If you are getting more into mountain walking later in life then poles are probably the pragmatic option.
Interesting re poles.
Contrary to this view, one of our local (Austrian) physios suggested that using poles is absolutely the best method for hiking etc. His view was the the human skeleton benefits immensely from the counter movements between upper/lower body. It’s also far more likely one sees hikers right across the age/gender spectrum using poles over here. Obviously hiking is a major thing in Austria and I guess they may understand a thing or two about how best to maximise the benefits of it.
Yeah I'm with the Austrian view of things - I probably started using poles 20+ years or so ago after a trip to Austria and saw that the walking guides there were all on them. Obviously got a reactionary attitude in the UK from the usual types e.g some wisecracker near the summit of Bla Bheinn joking I'd forgetten my skis etc.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
I think there's a bit of an attitude in the UK that suggests poles are for old people or something and a tendency to take the pee out of anyone using them. There is no such thinking in Austria – everyone uses poles unless they're just strolling along the tracks.
On the mountain paths, if you don't have poles, you end up having to use your hands to grab tree trunks or branches to steady yourself down steep paths or climb up higher than a comfortable step. With poles, you don't need to do this.
Once you are up high enough to be “mountain goating” over rocks, the poles don't work quite so well (may slip on stone) and you might want your hands free if scrambling. They do help on gravel though, and otherwise increase the efficiency of mountain walking.
@Scarlet, never felt the need for poles here in U.K. and we do a LOT of hiking, definitely on steeps in the Alps where we use them. I’m one of those who find it mildly amusing when I see folk tapping their way around our local reservoirs for example. In the Dales, Lakes or Munro’s yes good idea if on steeps but around a flat lake seems kinda unnecessary imv. Each to their own though, good for flicking dog poo away!
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
I now use hiking poles all the time, even stapping them to my pack when rock climbing, but I believe they are banned in certain places because of the environmental damage they cause. For some reason the Mercantour national park springs to mind as a place they are banned.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Remember when nordic walking was all the craze and seeing people just dragging the poles as if it was good enough just to hold the poles for them to 'work their magic'.
Tend to take 3 piece poles but don't use them on very flat or very steep terrain (steep enough to scramble). Main use is saving my knees on steep descents while carrying a heavy pack.
As with most sporting activities there are exercises (see youtube) you can do to reduce the chance of injury e.g. ankle & core strengthing exercises.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Cacciatore wrote:
jedster wrote:
Scarlet wrote:
Anyone worrying about their ankles – get yourself some poles (ski poles will do) and use them on any terrain that isn't smooth. They turn you into a quadruped and then the same three-points-of-contact rule from climbing can be applied, and stability is improved no end. They also speed you up a lot on rough terrain, as you rarely have to adjust a foot placement – the poles will hold you and you just carry on.
I've used poles at times but now don't bother unless I'm carrying a heavy pack descending steep ground or on loose scree or snow.
I'm firmly of the view that using poles prevents you from acquiring the skills to move in balance across rough terrain - they are a crutch that means you don't need to use your core muscles and feel to keep your weight centred over your feet.
It's better to get the foot placement right first time than use a pole to bail out your errors. Once you have the skills you can skip from rock to rock -"mountain goating" as my wife puts it.
But acquiring those skills requires time and miles in the mountains - probably best done when you are young. If you are getting more into mountain walking later in life then poles are probably the pragmatic option.
Interesting re poles.
Contrary to this view, one of our local (Austrian) physios suggested that using poles is absolutely the best method for hiking etc. His view was the the human skeleton benefits immensely from the counter movements between upper/lower body. It’s also far more likely one sees hikers right across the age/gender spectrum using poles over here. Obviously hiking is a major thing in Austria and I guess they may understand a thing or two about how best to maximise the benefits of it.
That must be right - it would be why you see tribesmen on the Serengeti using two sticks to get around.
Oh....
The human being is brilliantly evolved to cover long distances on foot (I believe we can cover more distance on foot in 24 hours than any land animal). It would be surprising if millennia of evolution and learned expertise at hunter gathering had missed out on twin sticks as a technology
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Scarlet wrote:
I think there's a bit of an attitude in the UK that suggests poles are for old people or something and a tendency to take the pee out of anyone using them. There is no such thinking in Austria – everyone uses poles unless they're just strolling along the tracks.
On the mountain paths, if you don't have poles, you end up having to use your hands to grab tree trunks or branches to steady yourself down steep paths or climb up higher than a comfortable step. With poles, you don't need to do this.
Once you are up high enough to be “mountain goating” over rocks, the poles don't work quite so well (may slip on stone) and you might want your hands free if scrambling. They do help on gravel though, and otherwise increase the efficiency of mountain walking.
actually my point is really to avoid using your hands (directly or via poles) for balance as much as possible that way you learn better balance so I will contrive smaller steps on less obvious holds to avoid big ones and avoid pulling on branches etc. I do have disproportionately strong legs/weedy upper body though which probably helps a bit
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
jedster wrote:
That must be right - it would be why you see tribesmen on the Serengeti using two sticks to get around.
Oh....
Did they have walking boots, wicking t-shirts and waterproof jackets too?
jedster wrote:
The human being is brilliantly evolved to cover long distances on foot (I believe we can cover more distance on foot in 24 hours than any land animal). It would be surprising if millennia of evolution and learned expertise at hunter gathering had missed out on twin sticks as a technology
Generally I don't use walking poles on flat ground but I do find them very useful on an incline to help with stability and speed - and to ward of tiredness. I started without when I was younger so have experienced both. But clearly it's an individuals decision.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
jedster wrote:
The human being is brilliantly evolved to cover long distances on foot (I believe we can cover more distance on foot in 24 hours than any land animal). It would be surprising if millennia of evolution and learned expertise at hunter gathering had missed out on twin sticks as a technology
But the human being has also evolved to be able easily to consume more calories than it's daily requirements, to sit around in bad chairs in front of computers, to drive rather than or cycle rather than walk 30+ miles per day.
I think it's fine for people to differ on whether poles are or aren't a benefit for them but to exert some sort of paleo sumpremacy seems slightly odd. Yes you can strengthen ankle ligaments etc etc but you roll one badly on a mountain you are still pretty FUBARed. Ask mountain rescue whether they'd prefer people go into the hills equipped like the Masai Mara or not?
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
A couple of summers ago I walked to the top of Snowdon via the Llanberis path. For those that know it, it is the most straight forward route although also the longest.
The top part is quite steep relative to most of the walk and rather gravelly for quite a while. On the way down I was very grateful for my poles as it would have been very easy to slip and have an unnecessary fall.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Markymark29 wrote:
never felt the need for poles here in U.K. and we do a LOT of hiking, definitely on steeps in the Alps where we use them. I’m one of those who find it mildly amusing when I see folk tapping their way around our local reservoirs for example. In the Dales, Lakes or Munro’s yes good idea if on steeps but around a flat lake seems kinda unnecessary imv. Each to their own though, good for flicking dog poo away!
I'll concede that most of the UK doesn't have the kind of terrain where poles will make any difference. There aren't a lot of forest paths either, and they're annoying when you get onto tarmac. I've never used poles in the Yorkshire Dales either, and the only places they'd have been useful was probably downclimbs from crags, where I never would have carried them up anyway. In Alpine terrain they make a huge difference, and might save you slipping over an edge.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Layne wrote:
jedster wrote:
That must be right - it would be why you see tribesmen on the Serengeti using two sticks to get around.
Oh....
Did they have walking boots, wicking t-shirts and waterproof jackets too?
jedster wrote:
The human being is brilliantly evolved to cover long distances on foot (I believe we can cover more distance on foot in 24 hours than any land animal). It would be surprising if millennia of evolution and learned expertise at hunter gathering had missed out on twin sticks as a technology
Generally I don't use walking poles on flat ground but I do find them very useful on an incline to help with stability and speed - and to ward of tiredness. I started without when I was younger so have experienced both. But clearly it's an individuals decision.
Come on - they would have struggled to make gore-tex but they could manage two sticks - it's hardly the same thing!
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
jedster wrote:
The human being is brilliantly evolved to cover long distances on foot (I believe we can cover more distance on foot in 24 hours than any land animal). It would be surprising if millennia of evolution and learned expertise at hunter gathering had missed out on twin sticks as a technology
But the human being has also evolved to be able easily to consume more calories than it's daily requirements, to sit around in bad chairs in front of computers, to drive rather than or cycle rather than walk 30+ miles per day.
I think it's fine for people to differ on whether poles are or aren't a benefit for them but to exert some sort of paleo sumpremacy seems slightly odd. Yes you can strengthen ankle ligaments etc etc but you roll one badly on a mountain you are still pretty FUBARed. Ask mountain rescue whether they'd prefer people go into the hills equipped like the Masai Mara or not?
I'm pretty sure that mountain rescue teams don't advise walking poles as essential equipment.
I just googled images of mountain rescue teams - they don't seem to use poles themselves.
As I said earlier in this thread - my ankle injuries have been when I wasn't looking where I was placing my feet. The answer to that problem is look where I place my feet!
I own walking poles and carry them in certain situations. People's preferences, needs, skills and physiology differ. I have found that if you have the leg strength and balance to manage without them then that is optimal. My wife has patella arthritis and always uses them.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Further suggestions to consider @Lost in the trees, for shoes I've used these extensively, they do have replaceable foot beds but also have very good basic structure to support that and especially if you have a high instep/midfoot. They are a wider forefoot if you are an owner of such too
They also make boots that look interesting, although no direct experience for me, yet. Thread has me thinking of more options as the way to go too, getting boot collection inferiority situation going https://www.planetcamping.co.uk/treksta-alta-gtx-hiking-boot/
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
*disclaimer: I haven't read the rest of the thread. Deal with it:D
You seriously expect people to read your long response while openly admitting you couldn't be öarsed to read theirs?
Only if they want to.
They can decide for themselves, with all my cards on the table.
I didn't read your above quoted response either. I expect you won't be reading this. Paradoxes abound.
jedster wrote:
On crampon compatibility...
Very good points, and why I ended up buying some summer boots a couple years later!
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Depends how wide/narrow your feet are.
For me, Salomon X Ultra 3 (xa 3d too narrow for me). Have 3 pairs, goretex and nongoretex, very nice boots, very light, about 300gr per shoe. unfortunally, the salmon quality has dropped last few years, so highly advisable to purchase with return option or try in store.
some other brands to try, Keen (they also do great sandals), Merrell, Columbia
I think insoles SHOULD be designed as part of the system and I am seeing some improvement but the ones that have come in my recent innov-8 and assics shoes are still pathetic thin shapeless things compared to superfeet. Like I said, my sportiva approach boots (and a pair of scarpa approach shoes that I have) do have much more substantial and better engineered insoles - they are both a dense rubber foam a bit like sorbothane - and I haven't replaced those. Superfeet have a deep heel cup and are very supportive but they are not soft and plush. It felt like the approach shoes/boots had been designed to work with a cushioned insole.
Hopefully things are changing and the general quality of standard insoles is improving.
That said, it hasn't really happened in ski boots has it? I imagine nearly all of us use either a custom insole or superfeet type aftermarket insoles in ski boots.
As with ski boots in most cases if you want top performance and comfort you generally have to pay more for a good pair of insoles/liners. I do so with most of my walking shoes/boots although the Salewa multifit insoles are so good I've kept the original insoles. When buying a new pair of walking footwear I always take the aftermarket insoles as sometimes the standard insoles are so thin that I have to go up a size to fit a good aftermarket insole in.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@ed48, "some other brands to try, Keen (they also do great sandals), Merrell, Columbia"
Yes, forgot about those and use https://www.keenfootwear.com/p/M-NEWPORT.html Newport for "coastal" amazingly grippy on any rocky surface with really good footbed plus toe protection for such an open shoe. Brilliant in very hot weather.
Merrell, good too for the ones we've had in family, generally narrower with hard wearing soles, although rated poor for anything that may have a hard and slick surface from our experience.
After all it is free
After all it is free
ed48 wrote:
some other brands to try, Keen (they also do great sandals)
In the quiver pic further up the page the bottom left shoes are keen sandals. Great for gorge walking days in hot summer as they are designed for walking through water.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
I got some Keen walking shoes. Didn't get on with them at all. Too stiff for me.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Water shoes are something that's niggled at me for a while (or it did when I used to go on adventures).
Too open, and bits of stone and gravel get in and under my feet causing constant rinse-outs... Too closed, end up sodden and heavy. I think the last time I used any in anger was a canoeing trip, and I ended up using neoprene booties with an old pair of my dads running shoes, I think I cut or burned an extra hole or two in them for water to drain from, but it worked well enough.
This isn't exactly going to help anyone/everyone, but as I've already posted in the thread it seemed polluting it further with my musings would cause little damage.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
. The implication of this is pretty simple and its not about shoe/boot choice!!!
from our experience.