from Hacker News

Why the best hiking boot is a sneaker

by gerad on 8/4/23, 2:21 AM with 44 comments

by leetrout on 8/4/23, 2:36 AM
https://archive.ph/UoPOb
Not sure why this is getting front page attention but this is largely a fluff sales piece.
> Dr. William Spielfogel, a podiatrist in New York City and medical adviser to the Good Feet Store, has seen sprains and fractures in patients who don’t wear more traditionally appropriate hiking footwear. “If anatomically you have weak ankles, flat feet or a history of injuries, it would be better to add some arch support,” he said.
Forget the arch support - if you are actually hiking and/or are not in the best shape or are in an area with Snakes and low brush you are much better off with the ANKLE support of actual hiking boots.
And I'll add, since it is a sales piece, as I put <100 miles or less a year on my boots, I am on year 13 or 14 on my Salomon boots with zero evidence of stopping any time soon with them. Definitely worth the money.
by rgmerk on 8/4/23, 2:47 AM
I went on a guided hiking trip in Iceland. The first day, we climbed to 1000 metres, after our guide warned us the weather was going to be a “little streamy”, which is a humorously Icelandic way of describing 1 degree Celsius, hurricane-strength winds, with accompanying horizontal rain.
If we’d been wearing sneakers rather than our hiking boots I suspect we’d have left our feet frozen on the trail somewhere.
by jmye on 8/4/23, 2:46 AM
Even trail-running shoes are over-built most of the time - most people don’t need the lugs (the trails 90% of people are on are just fine as long as your shoes aren’t totally worn out) or the drainage they offer, and rock plates are total overkill for anything low speed.
That said, it’s all pretty dumb. Wear what’s comfortable. If you don’t mind the weight, wear boots. I don’t think there’s a serious advantage in ankle sprains, given how poorly most people fit their shoes and lace them up.
But that’s also just one ultra/trail runner’s dumb opinion.
by screye on 8/4/23, 2:56 PM
After hiking & backpacking around a decent bit with a good few styles of shoes, I have found my answer : The Salomon X series [1]
The SalomanX are the lightest hiking shoes I've tried, while simultaneously feeling rugged. They easily have the grippiest sole of any shoe I have tried. There is no shoe I'd trust more on wet rock. The lacing system is chef's kiss. I would wear them in the city if they looked fashionable. I've never had blisters with them, and option for a wide-configuration is perfect for my feet.
I am a low-top dude. I find that ankle freedom allows me to place my foot in a manner that doesn't cause sprains rather than the restrictive nature of faux-ankle support mid-tops. I'd go for their hi-top versions if I was hiking in powder, but that's about it. No amount of ankle-support is going to keep your shoes dry if you step in stream or an unknown puddle. Lastly, any situation that needs deep grooves probably needs crampons/micro-spikes anyways, so having them built into the shoe is kind of redundant.
To the article's credit, the Saloman's do feel more like a beefed-up sneaker than a toned-down hiking shoe.
[1] https://www.salomon.com/en-us/shop/product/xa-pro-3d-v8-gtx-...
by relyks on 8/4/23, 2:41 AM
Tbh, hiking boots are really necessary for long hikes with differing weather elements. I can't imagine any of the sneakers listed in the article are water resistant enough to handle deep puddles of mud or bouts of ice and snow. The boots also help with traction and pressure differentials.
by GenerocUsername on 8/4/23, 2:54 AM
I feel like we should distinguish curated trails against actual rough terrain hikes.
A few roots and stones are fine in trail runners. But if you are scrambling on loose stones or tromping in thick brush you want boots.
I think these days there are more hikers doing the prior.
Simple as
by pepa65 on 8/13/23, 4:39 PM
As someone who's hiked barefoot with pack for weeks on mountain trails in Nepal, I've come to the conclusion that "ankle support" is not what is promises. I have rolled my ankle often enough when I was younger, but never when hiking or walking barefoot. (Of course there are other dangers, but that is not the point here.) Nowadays I like to hike in five-finger type footwear. Boots have their uses (stomping through the roughest terrain), but you always best off paying attention to what you do in whatever mode you hike around.
by CraigRo on 8/4/23, 4:25 AM
I read jardine and gave up my hiking boots years ago in favor of thick polyurethane soled sneakers like nb 990. Those are great for dry rocky trails. Add more rocks and you'll wish you had a toe box and some ankle protection. I've tried using lightweight sneakers and suffered some bad falls due to the soles slipping. Otoh, if you want to do 20+ miles per day, you have to make choices
by psunavy03 on 8/4/23, 2:40 AM
Like hell I'm bringing lightweight sneakers into the North Cascades with a pack on my back. Maybe back east where the mountains are glorified hills.
by jerlam on 8/4/23, 3:15 AM
The most popular footwear on the Appalachian Trail (a 2000+ mile thru-hike, although not all survey responders did the whole thing) are trail runners:
https://thetrek.co/appalachian-trail/top-footwear-appalachia...
Traditional hiking boots are quite heavy, take a long time to break in, and provide unnecessary protection and support if you know what you are doing. On the other hand, a lot of thru-hikers are completely wearing through multiple pairs of trail runners.
by mplewis on 8/4/23, 2:46 AM
This is a submarine piece for the trail runners in the article.
by tapatio on 8/4/23, 2:39 AM
I've known this for years. Hiking boots suck. It's all about trail running shoes.
by happytoexplain on 8/4/23, 3:35 AM
As usual, I almost don't even mind clickbait on HN because the comments end up providing actual content on the topic.
by flatline on 8/4/23, 2:32 AM
https://archive.is/UoPOb
by chrismcb on 8/4/23, 4:36 AM
I wouldn't go hiking in a "sneaker" as your typical sneaker didn't have the proper sole nor is it likely to be water resistant. I do wear hiking shoes, that are low ankle like a sneaker. But they have good sturdy non slip soles. And are fairly water resistant.
by gk1 on 8/4/23, 2:58 AM
Clickbait title. The article essentially says if you're just going for a short walk on a trail, you can get by with trail-runners. Which... duh.
> "But he notes that trail-running shoes can capably handle a light or moderate hike over mild terrain—it’s rougher environments that call for thicker soles and supportive midsoles."
With that said, I've used something in between trail runners and hiking boots for the past decade: The North Face Ultra 111's are rigid (with a shank in the sole), water resistant, and came with gore-tex outer sole (the previous versions, at least) for great grip. Yet they look like a normal sneaker, which means I can wear them in urban areas without standing out, and don't need to bring other shoes with me when I travel.
by cvccvroomvroom on 8/4/23, 4:58 PM
For even terrain, maybe.
For uneven terrain, only if you don't need your ankles. Basketball shoes might be more appropriate.
The big differentiators between tennis shoes and hiking boots are impact protection and waterproofing. For a long-term outdoor adventure, waterproofing and protection essential. It's difficult to beat what is essentially an army boot in these terms, although they may not be the lightest or most comfortable. The keys to selection are optimization and being adequately prepared.
by smallerfish on 8/4/23, 2:35 AM
Unless you're in snake country, in which case leather > canvas.
by ke88y on 8/4/23, 2:50 AM
Trail running shoes are patagucci.
Wearing trail running shoes for a strenuous hike -- without first building up a lot of ankle strength -- is a good way to get injured.
by amacalac on 8/4/23, 2:58 AM
Walking along Wall Street is hardly considered hiking...try somewhere like Arizona, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and I'll bet you change your mind...