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

"john bently" wrote in message
...
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.

My choice :

Skateboard trainers for dry conditions. (stiffish soles, good grip, no
tread)

Specialized Rockhoppers without SPD cleats for wet and muddy conditions
(very stiff soles, lots of tread, slightly more water resistant)

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/

"Peter Clinch" wrote...
Bob Hobden wrote:

If you are spending £130+ on good leather boots to last most of a
lifetime you have to get it right, approach shoes cost about £60 but are
not all-weather.

What weather aren't they?

Like now when everywhere is inches under water/mud.
Their soles also tend to be not so grippy as the full blown boot as I have
found to my cost traversing a slope in a snow storm!
Of course that may just be the ones I've got.
--
Regards
Bob Hobden
W.of London. UK

"john bently" wrote in message
...
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.


I was in the same position about 5 years ago. I went to Milletts and bought
a pair of Peter Storm lightweight walking boots for about £40. I tried on
several, but these immediately felt almost comfortable enough to sleep in!
Don't buy anything which you think will "wear in" - they either feel good
straight away or they don't.

I've had a lot of use out of them, and they are light enough to walk on road
or off road in grotty weather, plus great grips. They gave away a couple of
pairs of socks with them as well, which are still going strong. Decent
socks are important, no ridges and providing a comfortable lining to the
boot.

Just go to somewhere like Millets and see how you get on!

Barb

Barb wrote:
"john bently" wrote in message
...
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.


I was in the same position about 5 years ago. I went to Milletts and
bought a pair of Peter Storm lightweight walking boots for about £40.
I tried on several, but these immediately felt almost comfortable
enough to sleep in!

Don't buy anything which you think will "wear in"
- they either feel good straight away or they don't.

Thats not right. My current boots were a tad tight over the top of the foot, but
wore in fine and are by far the most comfortable for walking I have ever had.

I've had a lot of use out of them, and they are light enough to walk
on road or off road in grotty weather, plus great grips. They gave
away a couple of pairs of socks with them as well, which are still
going strong. Decent socks are important, no ridges and providing a
comfortable lining to the boot.

And its important to avoid pure synthetics too.

Just go to somewhere like Millets and see how you get on!

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:26:41 -0000, Bob Hobden wrote:

The important thing is do they fit and feel comfortable and have they got a
good grippy sole. (Vibram is THE sole make)

IME Vibram soles both skid easily and wear out rapidly.

I'm interested in Haglofs boots with the Hypergrip sole - would it live up
to its name?
--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.

"PeterC" wrote...
Bob Hobden wrote:

The important thing is do they fit and feel comfortable and have they got
a
good grippy sole. (Vibram is THE sole make)

IME Vibram soles both skid easily and wear out rapidly.

Not in my experience, certainly not as bad as some others. Probably depends
on the tread pattern.


I'm interested in Haglofs boots with the Hypergrip sole - would it live up
to its name?

--
Regards
Bob Hobden
W.of London. UK

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

PeterC wrote in
IME Vibram soles both skid easily and wear out rapidly.

My previous boots' leather gave up the ghost after
nearly a quarter of a century. The vibram was still
in perfectly adequate condition.

Vibram can aquaplane, particularly on smooth stone
surfaces. I haven't tested whether other materials
and/or tread patterns are better or worse.

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.



Buying a hiking boot from a review is like buying a dog from a review.

Fit is essential between your foot shape and your hiking boot choice.
You can get a great boot that doesn't fit your feet, and pretend that
you have made the best choice.

Some people buy a dog based on how they and the dog get along together.
That is probably a better match than a dog from a breed that experts like.

The common wisdom being passed around today is that fit is most important.

After that there are some other things like getting a rugged boot for
rugged conditions, or not getting a boot with a sole that is slick when
wet. Those are things that boot reviews can be good for. I bought a well
known brand of boot that was slick as snail snot when wet, and threw
them out after the second fall. A review might have helped me avoid that.

Magazines aren't good places for gear reviews anymore, as publishers
hate to give an advertiser a lousy review. That can be bad for the
publication business.

You might try http://www.backpackgeartest.org/reviews/

They (backpackgeartest.com) accept samples from industry and
volunteer/users provide reviews of the equipment. In addition, owners of
gear have been known to submit their own reviews of equipment they have
purchased.

I have also heard of http://gearjunkie.com/

pamela 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.

Buying a hiking boot from a review is like buying a dog from a review.

Nothing like in fact.

Fit is essential between your foot shape and your hiking boot choice.

Yes, but it does make sense to get a boot that has good reviews
on its design detail and THEN make sure it fits well too.

You can get a great boot that doesn't fit your feet, and pretend that you have made the best choice.

Some people buy a dog based on how they and the dog get along together.

Thats very difficult to do with very young puppys particularly.

That is probably a better match than a dog from a breed that experts like.

Or you could have enough of a clue to work out what breed you
want from the breed characteristics and then work out which of
the dogs that are available from the breed you like and then you
will be more likely to end up with the sort of dog you want,
given the behaviour that particular breed is known for etc.

The common wisdom being passed around today is that fit is most important.

Yes, but its is also important that the design is well done too and its well made etc as well.

After that there are some other things like getting a rugged boot for rugged conditions, or not getting a boot with a
sole that is slick
when wet. Those are things that boot reviews can be good for.

And for other things like how well it lasts and how well made it is etc.

I bought a well known brand of boot that was slick as snail snot when wet, and threw them out after the second fall. A
review might have helped me avoid that.

It might indeed.

Magazines aren't good places for gear reviews anymore, as publishers hate to give an advertiser a lousy review. That
can be bad for the publication business.

You might try http://www.backpackgeartest.org/reviews/

They (backpackgeartest.com) accept samples from industry and volunteer/users provide reviews of the equipment.

But its less clear how many of them are competant reviewers
and whether they will use them the way you plan to etc.

In addition, owners of gear have been known to submit their own reviews of equipment they have purchased.

Trouble with those, they arent likely to have tried too many alternatives.

I have also heard of http://gearjunkie.com/

Not saying its right for you but I wear L.L.Bean Trail Model Hikers and I
find them very comfortable. If you have a store near you, you can always go
in and try them out. They also have a great satisfaction guarantee.


"john bently" wrote in message
...
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.




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 20/02/2010 17:44, Bob Hobden wrote:


"PeterC" wrote...
Bob Hobden wrote:

The important thing is do they fit and feel comfortable and have they
got a
good grippy sole. (Vibram is THE sole make)

IME Vibram soles both skid easily and wear out rapidly.

Not in my experience, certainly not as bad as some others. Probably
depends on the tread pattern.


There are numerous different flavours of Vibram soles, and not all are
equal, but IME they do grip better than most of the alternatives.

As far as boots go .. well I've destroyed or abandoned about 10 pairs
now (3 still on the go) .. for best fit at full price (for MY feet) I
like the commercial Alt-berg ones, since they come in 5 width fittings,
and half sizes, although not all stockists stock all of them. My last
pair lasted 1500 miles, and was comfy quite fast.

If you want cheaper, then I'm quite happy with the Johncliffe Scafell
boot, for about 1/3rd of the price - I got mine via Amazon. Hawkshead
Lomer also used to be good (for me) but are now gone. Karrimor
Skye/Orkney work well for deep stuff in winter, but are a bit high for
real comfort, and take a long time to wear in.

But as everyone has said - fit is most important, followed by a decent
sole, and if you're out on mud / grass etc you need some =edges= ..
rounded heels will dump you on the first slope you try to traverse..

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
16,110 Km walked. 2,937 Km PROWs surveyed. 53.1% complete.

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 00:05:14 GMT, Tom wrote:

PeterC wrote in
IME Vibram soles both skid easily and wear out rapidly.

My previous boots' leather gave up the ghost after
nearly a quarter of a century. The vibram was still
in perfectly adequate condition.

Yes, my old boots are OK after a lot of walking, but the Scarpa soles were
well worn after about a year and mainly flatt(ish) ground. They also skid
on a clean, wet road (where my bike tyres are difficult to lock (well, rear
wheel!) and last for 3,000 miles.

Vibram can aquaplane, particularly on smooth stone
surfaces. I haven't tested whether other materials
and/or tread patterns are better or worse.

It'd need a lot of water and speed to get those cleats to aquaplane!
--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.