Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was done
way back in april 2006.

Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.

On Feb 19, 10:58*pm, "john bently" wrote:
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? *Apparently the last consumers association review was done
way back in april 2006.

Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy? *Thanks for any advice.

John

First step would be to think about the style of walking you're
interested in doing.

Maybe starting out you would be more likely to go on shorter walks on
good tracks in National Parks or other well maintained bush tracks,
generally in better weather. At that end you could even start with
sand shoes, or like hikers.

Mid hikers would be more suitable for slightly harder walks,and then
there are a variety of "full" boots for the really serious walker

John r

john bently wrote:
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was done
way back in april 2006.

Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any advice.

Reviews are of little use beyond telling you what conditions a certain
pair can be expected to handle.

And they are of little use (and anecdotes of goodness of little use
alongside them) because the absolutely crucial point is fit. There is a
lot more to a shoe-size as to how well a boot fits as feet are complex 3
dimensional shapes and so are boots. it doesn't matter if they're
lasted and stitched by God's Own Right Hand if they're a different shape
to your feet. For example, my wife and I have quite different foot
shapes: I like Scarpa and Teva, she doesn't like either.

So I'd suggest you find a good shop that knows its boot-fitting (tell us
where you are and suggestions can be made).

Also, don't assume you need boots. I do most of my walking in shoes and
sandals because they're lighter and have less stuff to rub, so more
comfort, less tiring to walk in and less chance of rubbing (and
blisters). Folk go on and on about ankle support being necessary, but
the fact is that human ankles are perfectly adequate for walking and
shouldn't need any extra propping up most of the time. Some things,
like edging skis or standing on your toes on a tiny hold or carrying
outsize loads ankles haven't evolved to carry, do benefit from extra
ankle support, but /walking/ is actually harder as your foot is more
restricted from normal flexing. Some boots benefit from being stiffer,
for example to take crampons or walking over very rough stone paths, but
in other places again they just prevent your foot from conforming
naturally to the terrain and make walking more tiring.

In summary, try on a good selection with a good fitter (who can do
things like add volume adjusters and short-cut to models/brands suitable
for you foot-shape) and depending on where and what you have in mind
don't assume you particularly need boots.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch wrote:
Also, don't assume you need boots.

In fact, assume that you don't. Get a well fitting running shoe, or a
lightweight trail shoe. Boots are overkill for most hiking. Lightweight
shoes will allow you to use a more natural stride, and will be less
effort to walk in.

Scott Bryce wrote:
Peter Clinch wrote:
Also, don't assume you need boots.

In fact, assume that you don't. Get a well fitting running shoe, or a
lightweight trail shoe. Boots are overkill for most hiking. Lightweight
shoes will allow you to use a more natural stride, and will be less
effort to walk in.

Indeed. Worth noting with running shoes is that not all grip patterns
are up to much off-road. You want some degree of cleats/studs/lugs to
deal with mud, unless you like sitting down a lot...

The more flexible the sole the more you'll get sore feet walking on hard
and uneven surfaces, but the less effort you'll waste on soft and/or
even ones.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Scott Bryce wrote:
Peter Clinch wrote:
Also, don't assume you need boots.

In fact, assume that you don't. Get a well fitting running shoe, or a
lightweight trail shoe. Boots are overkill for most hiking. Lightweight
shoes will allow you to use a more natural stride, and will be less
effort to walk in.

Indeed. Worth noting with running shoes is that not all grip patterns
are up to much off-road. You want some degree of cleats/studs/lugs to
deal with mud, unless you like sitting down a lot...

The more flexible the sole the more you'll get sore feet walking on hard
and uneven surfaces, but the less effort you'll waste on soft and/or
even ones.

Pete.

FWIW, my preference for trail shoes would be Meindle(Scout). they are
waterproof and very durable, oh yes- and comfortable.

Bill

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:08:45 -0700, Scott Bryce
wrote:

Peter Clinch wrote:
Also, don't assume you need boots.

In fact, assume that you don't. Get a well fitting running shoe, or a
lightweight trail shoe. Boots are overkill for most hiking. Lightweight
shoes will allow you to use a more natural stride, and will be less
effort to walk in.

Yes, hiking in rocks and walking level terrain are different.
I walked many miles a days some years ago and found that what shoes
you wear make a huge difference.
And price doesn't mean much.
I found New Balance running shoes best. Can't remember the model, but
they weren't expensive compared to others and hiking boots.
Cushion is important when you're pounding your heels down mile after
mile. I was lucky that a marathoner I knew recommended them.
Saved me expensive trial and error.
For putting on miles, it might be good to google what marathoners use.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:

I found New Balance running shoes best. Can't remember the model, but
they weren't expensive compared to others and hiking boots.

Again, what works depends on your feet. I like NB in their 2E width
fitting, but again it's down to individual feet. I also like Saucony,
but not Adidas, others have different feet and different preferences.

Cushion is important when you're pounding your heels down mile after
mile. I was lucky that a marathoner I knew recommended them.

The particular ground you're on makes a difference. Running on streets
means a hard surface and exaggerated footfalls from running rather than
walking. Also, different folk have a different strike, those with a
heavy heel-plant probably need more cushioning than others. More
cushioning means a higher shoe, which means less control of the foot:
it's notable that fell-running shoes have practically no cushioning,
partly as they're for soft ground where the ground does the cushioning,
and partly to minimise the chances of turning an ankle getting nasty by
providing extra leverage from the extra shoe height.

Saved me expensive trial and error.
For putting on miles, it might be good to google what marathoners use.

Trail running shoes, which have more aggressive outsoles than street
shoes and usually tougher uppers, may be a better place to look unless
the OP is planning on walking around streets.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In message
Vic Smith wrote:

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:08:45 -0700, Scott Bryce
wrote:

Peter Clinch wrote:
Also, don't assume you need boots.

In fact, assume that you don't. Get a well fitting running shoe, or a
lightweight trail shoe. Boots are overkill for most hiking. Lightweight
shoes will allow you to use a more natural stride, and will be less
effort to walk in.

Yes, hiking in rocks and walking level terrain are different.

Solid level terrain is also different from giving level terrain and
rocks. I wear boots (don't fancy picking my way along the top of the
Scafells in shoes), and they're fine there, they're fine on level,
good stony paths, and they knacker me on roads.

--
Simon Challands

On 20 Feb, 17:54, Simon Challands
wrote:
In message
* * * * * Vic Smith wrote:

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:08:45 -0700, Scott Bryce
wrote:
Peter Clinch wrote:
Also, don't assume you need boots.

In fact, assume that you don't. Get a well fitting running shoe, or a
lightweight trail shoe. Boots are overkill for most hiking. Lightweight
shoes will allow you to use a more natural stride, and will be less
effort to walk in.
Yes, hiking in rocks and walking level terrain are different.

Solid level terrain is also different from giving level terrain and
rocks. I wear boots (don't fancy picking my way along the top of the
Scafells in shoes), and they're fine there, they're fine on level,
good stony paths, and they knacker me on roads.

--
Simon Challands

"(don't fancy picking my way along the top of the
Scafells in shoes)"

A light pair of Inov-8's will see you skipping across the rocks? ;-)

On 19 Feb, 12:20, Peter Clinch wrote:
john bently wrote:
Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
available please? *Apparently the last consumers association review was done
way back in april 2006.

Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
generally believed by many people to be a good buy? *Thanks for any advice.

Reviews are of little use beyond telling you what conditions a certain
pair can be expected to handle.

And they are of little use (and anecdotes of goodness of little use
alongside them) because the absolutely crucial point is fit. *There is a
lot more to a shoe-size as to how well a boot fits as feet are complex 3
dimensional shapes and so are boots. *it doesn't matter if they're
lasted and stitched by God's Own Right Hand if they're a different shape
to your feet. *For example, my wife and I have quite different foot
shapes: I like Scarpa and Teva, she doesn't like either.

So I'd suggest you find a good shop that knows its boot-fitting (tell us
where you are and suggestions can be made).

Also, don't assume you need boots. *I do most of my walking in shoes and
sandals because they're lighter and have less stuff to rub, so more
comfort, less tiring to walk in and less chance of rubbing (and
blisters). *Folk go on and on about ankle support being necessary, but
the fact is that human ankles are perfectly adequate for walking and
shouldn't need any extra propping up most of the time. *Some things,
like edging skis or standing on your toes on a tiny hold or carrying
outsize loads ankles haven't evolved to carry, do benefit from extra
ankle support, but /walking/ is actually harder as your foot is more
restricted from normal flexing. *Some boots benefit from being stiffer,
for example to take crampons or walking over very rough stone paths, but
in other places again they just prevent your foot from conforming
naturally to the terrain and make walking more tiring.

In summary, try on a good selection with a good fitter (who can do
things like add volume adjusters and short-cut to models/brands suitable
for you foot-shape) and depending on where and what you have in mind
don't assume you particularly need boots.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch * * * * * * * * * *Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 * Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 * * * * * * *Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net * *http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

I'm not an Inov-8 salesman but south of the border I can't see the
point in boots.

For just trail stuff the f-lites are great, and as Pete suggested the
mud-rocs have sufficient lugs to cope with mud, grass, etc.

Hopefully, the old-fashioned view of must wear boots on the hill is
diminishing?

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:34:33 -0800 (PST), FenlandRunner wrote:

ot an Inov-8 salesman but south of the border I can't see the
point in boots.

For just trail stuff the f-lites are great, and as Pete suggested the
mud-rocs have sufficient lugs to cope with mud, grass, etc.

Hopefully, the old-fashioned view of must wear boots on the hill is
diminishing?

Well, walking across fields yesterday, after the frost was going, would
have been very messy in shoes! In several places the mud was half way up
the boots and in others there were about 2 - 3" of icy water.
Not too easy to avoid these when on footpaths near farms.
--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.

In article ,
PeterC wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:34:33 -0800 (PST), FenlandRunner wrote:

ot an Inov-8 salesman but south of the border I can't see the
point in boots.

For just trail stuff the f-lites are great, and as Pete suggested the
mud-rocs have sufficient lugs to cope with mud, grass, etc.

Hopefully, the old-fashioned view of must wear boots on the hill is
diminishing?

Well, walking across fields yesterday, after the frost was going, would
have been very messy in shoes! In several places the mud was half way up
the boots and in others there were about 2 - 3" of icy water.
Not too easy to avoid these when on footpaths near farms.

Heather is quite fun in shoes, too. Boot keep most of it out, and
boots+gaiters are more-or-less proof against it.

Also, the simple padding is quite important for rocky going; a
clip on the ankle is enough to make it quite hard to walk.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:15:20 +0000 (GMT), wrote:

In article ,
PeterC wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:34:33 -0800 (PST), FenlandRunner wrote:

ot an Inov-8 salesman but south of the border I can't see the
point in boots.

For just trail stuff the f-lites are great, and as Pete suggested the
mud-rocs have sufficient lugs to cope with mud, grass, etc.

Hopefully, the old-fashioned view of must wear boots on the hill is
diminishing?

Well, walking across fields yesterday, after the frost was going, would
have been very messy in shoes! In several places the mud was half way up
the boots and in others there were about 2 - 3" of icy water.
Not too easy to avoid these when on footpaths near farms.

Heather is quite fun in shoes, too. Boot keep most of it out, and
boots+gaiters are more-or-less proof against it.

Also, the simple padding is quite important for rocky going; a
clip on the ankle is enough to make it quite hard to walk.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

My first boots had little padding over the ankles and a clip against a rock
hurt through 2 layers of leather.
I did do a walk that had a lot of rocky going - including stepping stones
and limestone pavement - in sandals and didn't hurt anything. It's like
wearing snadals whilst playing darts - one is much more aware of what could
happen and adjusts accordingly.
Still wouldn't want to be in sandals across wet farmland, though.

--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.

PeterC wrote:

Well, walking across fields yesterday, after the frost was going, would
have been very messy in shoes! In several places the mud was half way up
the boots and in others there were about 2 - 3" of icy water.
Not too easy to avoid these when on footpaths near farms.

I'd be wearing what the farmers seem to wear: wellies.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/