Shoes advice…

antoniolgj

Hi,

I have been going up the mountains in Wicklow for sunrise pictures for few months now, so far I have used running shoes and it was OK, but now the winder is coming, and last Saturday morning my feet were just like two block of ice.

So I need to buy some very…very good quality pair of water prove/cold prove boots/shoes, can anyone advice what to buy and where in south Dublin/ north Wicklow area?

Cheers,

Tony

thehomeofDob

What's your budget for these? There are lots and lots and lots to choose from!

antoniolgj

Well as I said it needs to be something good,so from 150e to around 200e. I have found some options around this prices at www.outdooradventurestore.ie, which happen to be here in Bray.

dogmatix

I'd get a proper pair of hiking boots - ones that give good ankle support.

Meindl are a quality brand that are popular with a lot of hill walkers. Berghaus, Brasher and North Face are good brands also.

Most of the boots in this link would be good and are within your price range. Combine them with a good pair of thick walking socks and you should not have to suffer icy or wet feet again. Not sure about Hi-Tec though - better sticking to Brasher or Berghaus.

http://www.outdooradventurestore.ie/products/footwear/mens/boots

Donny5

dogmatix wrote: »

I'd get a proper pair of hiking boots - ones that give good ankle support.

I'd say that if you're not planning on carrying more than 10 or 15 kg, I wouldn't bother with boots and just go with a good pair of hiking shoes. While ankle support is great with massive bergens, but overkill for any day hikes in Ireland, I think.

antoniolgj

Thank you guys...

Esel

Donny5 wrote: »

I'd say that if you're not planning on carrying more than 10 or 15 kg, I wouldn't bother with boots and just go with a good pair of hiking shoes. While ankle support is great with massive bergens, but overkill for any day hikes in Ireland, I think.

Can't agree with this advice, tbh. Ankle support is always a good thing when walking over rough/remote terrain. It could mean the difference between being able to limp out and being immobilised.

Donny5

Esel wrote: »

Can't agree with this advice, tbh. Ankle support is always a good thing when walking over rough/remote terrain. It could mean the difference between being able to limp out and being immobilised.

In my experience, ankle support (unless carrying a lot of weight) is more likely to cause, rather than prevent, rolls or sprains. I also think that boots, especially boots like Hanwags or Meindls designed for lugging loads up ice and rock, lead to weak and easily tired ankles and calves.

There is no terrain in Ireland that, in my opinion, requires boots. Hiking shoes are great for the grip and protection they provide, and let your ankles move the way they should.

Alun

Donny5 wrote: »

There is no terrain in Ireland that, in my opinion, requires boots. Hiking shoes are great for the grip and protection they provide, and let your ankles move the way they should.

If you only walk on tracks maybe, but off the beaten track on typical rough steep ground with heather, rocks, hidden holes etc., no way. Not to mention the muck

Donny5

Alun wrote: »

If you only walk on tracks maybe, but off the beaten track on typical rough steep ground with heather, rocks, hidden holes etc., no way. Not to mention the muck

I only really walk on tracks to get to open mountain, and I think shoes are definitely safer than boots in heather, on loose rocks and scree, in bog, and even when falling into hidden holes. I know a lot of people swear by boots, and I always wear them with heavy loads or on ice, but shoes offer the freedom of movement to properly react to the ground underfoot. There are even people running and orienteering all over every type of terrain in Ireland and none of them are wearing boots, despite the much greater forces and risk of injury involved.

You do have a point about mud and water, though. I don't really care about that on dayhikes, just get wet and dirty for a few hours. You can get boots with soft fabric ankles that are effectively shoes with built-in gaiters, if that's an issue.

Pat Mustard

For the mountains, I vote boots as opposed to shoes.

Some people seem not to need the ankle support that only boots can give. These people are in a small minority.

Speaking as someone who has once sprained his ankle, it is not an injury that I would ever care to experience again.

You can save money on many things in life - your hiking boots should not be one of those things.

If you have €200 to spend, you can and should get a pair of Meindl boots.

Alun

Each to their own I suppose, but there's no way on earth I'd do the kind of walks I do every week without my boots.

Donny5

The Mustard wrote: »

Some people seem not to need the ankle support that only boots can give. These people are in a small minority.

I don't think that's true. I suspect that it's boots causing the problem by promoting weak ankles and calves, rather than solving an epidemic of weak legs.

Alun wrote: »

Each to their own I suppose, but there's no way on earth I'd do the kind of walks I do every week without my boots.

Have you ever tried it? You might be surprised. I was once a disciple of the virtues of boots, and always wore them on the hills. When I took up jogging in the mountains wearing trail runners, I realised just how much better my calves felt after even walks wearing them. I bought a pair of hiking shoes and since then, I've had far fewer problems and injuries with my legs, and can walk much farther without fatigue.

Alun

Donny5 wrote: »

Have you ever tried it? You might be surprised. I was once a disciple of the virtues of boots, and always wore them on the hills. When I took up jogging in the mountains wearing trail runners, I realised just how much better my calves felt after even walks wearing them. I bought a pair of hiking shoes and since then, I've had far fewer problems and injuries with my legs, and can walk much farther without fatigue.

I have done on occasions and actually found the opposite to be true. I can walk forever in my boots, well not literally forever, but 18-25km walks every weekend and plenty of long distance footpaths in the UK of 300km or more with no ill effects. Plus I really, really don't like wet feet.

In fact, I did buy a pair of lightweight mid-height hiking shoes specifically for the trip I did this year to the Picos de Europa, as I thought they'd be cooler and also maybe they'd be more suited to the type of terrain (lot's of prepared trails) and wore them once here (25km along trails) to try them out. They stayed firmly in the box after that and I took my trusty old boots instead

Pat Mustard

Donny5 wrote: »

When I took up jogging in the mountains wearing trail runners, I realised just how much better my calves felt after even walks wearing them.

The benefits of running are well documented. Among these benefits, tendons and ligaments in the legs become significantly stronger in order to cope with the repetitive pounding to the legs experienced by endurance athletes.

It makes little sense to expect that people who do not participate in running-type sports will experience these specific benefits.

Donny5 wrote: »

I don't think that's true. I suspect that it's boots causing the problem by promoting weak ankles and calves, rather than solving an epidemic of weak legs.

I've never heard of this epidemic of weakness caused by hiking boots. Can you point to an article from a respected medical journal to back up this bold claim?

In the last five years, every person with whom I have gone hiking has worn hiking boots, bar one. You are in a small minority here.

Donny5

The Mustard wrote: »

Can you point to an article from a respected medical journal to back up this bold claim?

Nope, but trying to find information about clinical trials or studies abut the topic is like pulling teeth. I only proferred my opinion, and prefaced it as such.

The Mustard wrote: »

I go hiking with two fairly fit doctors every so often, both of whom wear hiking boots. They are always going on about various types of injuries. Neither of them ever mentioned an epidemic of weakness caused by hiking boots.

Can you or the doctors provide any evidence that hiking boots reduce injuries? Without it, their opinion is just like mine - anecdotal.

The Mustard wrote: »

In the last five years, every person with whom I have gone hiking has worn hiking boots, apart from the marathon runner that I previously mentioned.

Again, anecdotal evidence - lots of the people I hike with don't wear boots, at least not for walking in Ireland. That said, most of us are runners and many marathoners, too, so maybe that's the distinction.

As for ankle strength, as antoniolgj is going up in runners now, I'd say his ankles are well up to the task. The shoes might not be as waterproof as full length boots, but you can get waterproof socks or gaiters. Just more options for the guy.

Pat Mustard

Donny5 wrote: »

Nope, but trying to find information about clinical trials or studies abut the topic is like pulling teeth. I only proferred my opinion, and prefaced it as such.

I see.

Donny5 wrote: »

Can you or the doctors provide any evidence that hiking boots reduce injuries? Without it, their opinion is just like mine - anecdotal.

You are getting a little side-tracked here. You are the one with the bold claim, but you are not prepared to back it up.

Donny5 wrote: »

Again, anecdotal evidence

Agreed. Best left out.

Donny5 wrote: »

That said, most of us are runners and many marathoners, too, so maybe that's the distinction.

Seems logical.

Donny5 wrote: »

As for ankle strength, as antoniolgj is going up in runners now, I'd say his ankles are well up to the task. The shoes might not be as waterproof as full length boots, but you can get waterproof socks or gaiters. Just more options for the guy.

Fair enough.

Donny5

The Mustard wrote: »

You are getting a little side-tracked here. You are the one with the bold claim, but you are not prepared to back it up.

I make no claim - I just voiced a skeptical opinion. I think that your (and the manufacturers') claim that boots do reduce ankle injuries is the real unsubstantiated assertion. Do you have any evidence that they do? If you want to be scientific, the null hypothesis should be that do not until proven otherwise.

Pat Mustard

Donny5 wrote: »

I make no claim - I just voiced a skeptical opinion.

Yes, you did make a claim. This is what you claimed:

Donny5 wrote: »

I don't think that's true. I suspect that it's boots causing the problem by promoting weak ankles and calves, rather than solving an epidemic of weak legs.

Donny5 wrote: »

I think that your (and the manufacturers') claim that boots do reduce ankle injuries is the real unsubstantiated assertion. Do you have any evidence that they do? If you want to be scientific, the null hypothesis should be that do not until proven otherwise.

This is a classic 'strawman' argument, because those are your words - not mine. Again, you were the one who made a claim about boots 'promoting weak ankles and calves'.

You made the bold claim. You back it up. I'm not going to fight your battles.

Donny5

The Mustard wrote: »

Yes, you did make a claim. This is what you claimed:






This is a classic 'strawman' argument, because those are your words - not mine. Again, you were the one who made a claim about boots 'promoting weak ankles and calves'.

You made the bold claim. You back it up. I'm not going to fight your battles.

No, I don't believe the claim that boots reduce injuries when hiking unloaded. There isn't any evidence that I know that supports the claim, so by default I'll assume it's negative.

I also suspect that wearing boots increases the prevalence of injuries, but I have no evidence, so it's just that, a suspicion.

If you want to be analytical, then the first claim made was made by dogmatix and reaffirmed by others including you. That is that ankle support reduces injuries, and where's the evidence? That's your assertion, not prefaced by any kind of qualifier, so what's it based on? Where's the clinical studies? The case studies? The meta-analysis? Anything? You won't be fighting my battles for me, you'll be justifying your own claims.

Of course, if you don't have any evidence, and are just relaying received wisdom, then you shouldn't be talking about bold but unfounded claims.

duckysauce

Boots all the way for me was on a walking holiday last month and went over on my ankle twice , if it wasn't for boots and poles with have done damage, not nice especially if you are on your own. Also a relation had to be air lifted off a Mountain after doing their ankle in because they were not wearing their proper hiking boots, and went in ordinary walking shoes. They were well pissed that they were not wearing boots.

Each to their own though as you see the Mountain runners going through all sorts of crap in their trail shoes , if I am walking on a Trail I will wear Trail shoes . But if there is in anyway a steep decent it boots .

Pat Mustard

Donny5 wrote: »

If you want to be analytical, then the first claim made was made by dogmatix and reaffirmed by others including you. That is that ankle support reduces injuries, and where's the evidence? That's your assertion, not prefaced by any kind of qualifier, so what's it based on? Where's the clinical studies? The case studies? The meta-analysis? Anything? You won't be fighting my battles for me, you'll be justifying your own claims.

You might quote me there, instead of attempting to put words in my mouth yet again.

antoniolgj

Thanks all for the advises...

dogmatix

I still think boots would be a better bet then shoes - the OP's first post mentions his feet where cold and an ankle length boot would offer more protection and therefore warmth then a low cut shoe. Also it would offer more waterproofing then a shoe which also feeds into better warmth. So just going by that criteria alone a boot should be a better bet.