shoes? that big a deal?

[tekkado]

So all my life ive always been pretty easy with shoes and never bought too much into the marketing of shoes. Like comm'on how differrent can they all be. For scrambling over rocks with a light day pack ive generally gone with a pair of slip on crocs or volley style shoe that i have because theyre easy light and they can get wet with no dramas. I also play golf and do other activities in them too (Theyre not typical crocs more like a slip on sneaker).
theyre not the most comfortable but like how nimble they let me be.

For longer hikes where my pack is heavier i usually just wear my joggers.
so i dont know too much about shoes and i dont think ill find something covering all the bases but im keen on something that will be able to go in the water and dry quick but also be comfortable and give me support.
Anything at this point is probably an upgrade but im not picky.

The merrell maipo is something ive given considerable thought.

A pair of five fingers is also appealing but im yet to read a review of someone using them for long hikes and how they go in that repsect but they do look good for scrambling and being agile And good in the water. And then another seperate pair of shoes for the long hikes either 5:10 camp fours or asolo piuma's.
Any input is greatly appreciated and one last question with the 5 fingers is all this hoohaa about how they retrain your feet or whatever. Will it be so much as changing over to non five fingers for different situations be that uncomfortable???

[icefest]

Retraining feet is a mostly unfounded assertion. I do think therapy feel different and that needs getting used to.

There a guy in Washington who only walks in 5fingers.

[gayet]

I seem to recall a post on here of someone doing the Western (?) Arthurs in 5 fingers.

The retraining your feet is more a problem for those that do not go bare foot anywhere or who have always walked/hiked in heavier boots with lots of support and stiff soles etc I think. Its a different mechanical action in 5f than in boots!

[tekkado]

Yeah just seemed or came across at least like "once you go five fingers you dont go back.......or you hate them" Haha
but yeah they seem like great shoes for scrambling just was worried about switching constantly that if you dont wear then enough theyd never be comfortable?

[slparker]

I've been wearing merrell trail runners for the last year or so, they are like 5 fingers without the separate toes. The big difference between these shoes (and other footwear) is the lack of sole height (just a thin but tangible layer of vibram rubber) and the flexibility.
http://www.amazon.com/Merrell-Trail-Glo ... rail+glove

There is science behind these shoes, in terms of protection against ankle injury (which admittedly i don't suffer from) and as recently as two months ago New Scientist had an article on the ability of the foot to adapt quickly to increased 'strength' (ie soft tissues and muscles of the arch) requirements of barefoot like footwear. So it does seem plausible that wearing minimilist footwear does lead to increased strength conditioning of the foot arch.

None of these factors mean that we ought to replace all our footwear with these shoes. There is no evidence to suggest that they are any more effective than heavier, stiffer, rigid footwear. The only evidence is that if all you wear is stiff footwear your feet will become used to what is essentially a splint. The other evidence is that ankle injury is likely to increase with footwear that impairs proprioception.

I have worn minimilist footwear on dayhikes in the Aust alps, overseas in asia etc and have noticed a tangible difference in proprioception and surefootedness but I haven't (and maybe won't) wear them for multiday or overnight walks with a pack. That's not to say that you can't.
Am I a convert? Not really, I wear them constantly and happily day walk with them but I don't think that they are the holy grail. i do miss them when I wear boots on overnighters though and it's made me switch from stiff soled to flexible soled boots for my overnight walks.

In summary (with my experience of them)

Pros: incredibly light, dries very quickly,very good grip: you can feel your toes grip rocks and roots to provide more traction, great trailfeel (ie proprioception), impossible to get a blister as they are like wearing socks, surprisingly no foot bruising - even on rocky terrain. great for travelling, wet muddy walks etc.
cons: took two months of wearing to get my achilles tendon and calves used to having no- heeled shoes. It has taken longer to acclimatise my feet to having little cushioning, you DO notice sharp rocks so picking your way through terrain is sometimes required.

[Gadgetgeek]

I like my five-fingers. That being said, the marketing on them was mostly whooy and they got sued for it. But that's not unusual for athletic footwear. Sketchers got nailed too for those weird curved sole shoes.

Everyone is going to find they need something different, and for different conditions. I'll do day-hikes or light stuff in my five-fingers, but for a trek with a full pack, or any time I have to move fast I'd go for something like merril moabs. Having to think about where your little toe is all the time is a bit different.

Since you are used to little to no support, I think you would get good use out of some trail runners. something that is light, drains well and has good traction, since you already likely have the foot strength to support your heels and ankles. But if you want to go for barefoot shoes, just be aware that your toes take a beating in 5fingers if you are not very careful. And for some people they don't fit well, depending on the ratio from your big to small toe. best to try them on and not buy sight unseen.

[DarrenM]

I found a great book called "Born to run", by Cristopher McDougall which goes into a reasonable amount of interesting detail about conventional shoes vs minimalist footwear. (Great read in general actually)

I get around in a pair of xeroshoes in part to combat stress fractures on trail runs (trains you to land light on your feet)....the problem with that is trying not to get stress fractures in the fragile bones of the feet.

Think about the number of years you have worn shoes to cushion your fall. Now think about how long it may take for your feet to adapt without them.

[tekkado]

Yeah true. Thanks for the replies think next week ill go try some on vs some merrel maipo's (they seem a bit more on the versatile side) considering i usual day hike in volleys or real cheap canvas shoes anything is an improvement at this point. Haha

[quill]

Using minimalist shoes for bushwalking attracts the same benefits and risks of running in them. Namely the benefits being a very light shoe which is low maintenance, the risks being 'retraining' feet is not simply a matter of allowing the foot's 28 or so muscles to strengthen, but to retrain the proprioception (sense of where the foot is in three dimensional space). Lack of proprioception leads to rolled ankles at least as much as muscular insufficiency, and cushioned shoes damp down the foot's proprioceptive capability. This takes time to retrain. Not for nothing Vibram have attracted a successful class-action lawsuit in the US from people who thought a simple protocol of using the shoes for a few weeks would, at the very least, not injure them. Many people were and continue to be injured through discovering podiatric support is more than having a fillet of foam in your instep.

There is no easy solution. It is relatively easy to strengthen extrinsic muscles of the foot. The intrinsics are mostly outside conscious control and simply need time to work together efficiently.

I myself use running shoes with an aftermarket silicone arch insert. I twigged to this after my last pair of running shoes clocked up 1000km of heavy running, put simply they just keep on going and are very well-made, a feature common to all decent running shoes. They are also very light. Vibrams are fine but beware blisters in the toes, and they also stink. Washing seems to do little to stop this.

I say go for it, minimalist running shoes are great for bushwalking (and I basically grew up in Volleys - the only reason I don't use them for bushwalking is they are now very cheaply made and the soles wear out swiftly). But just beware the dangers, and perhaps take it slowly.

[Zone-5]

What you need is a decent thick soled shanked hiking shoe to protect against toe stubbing and sharp intrusions...

If the sole is not the thicker Vibram (picture) outer shoe sole then pass it by.



Does not matter what the uppers look like, the shoe sole rubber is the foot's only protection and a serious Vibram soled shoe seems to both perform and protect better.

I'm not talking about those groovy Vibram 5 Fingers or fashion foot gloves as they only offer minimal protection and broken bones! If you injure your feet on a hike because of poor shoe choice you then become a huge burden to your companions...



my 2¢

[earthgrace]

I've done day hikes with five fingers. I wear boots for harder hikes, but would prefer the minimalist way. No adjustment time to FF for me, I almost never wear heavy shoes.

Pros: very sure-footed, very light, a lot more pleasant, easy to dry.

Cons: the back bit rubbed against the back of my ankle, (only) one incident with bruised-feeling feet after a very rocky day.