walking boots-- which are good?
 

On Feb 19, 11:58*am, "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.

I sincerely hope, Mr Bently, that you will come back and tells us what
you ended up buying, and why. This thread seems like a lot of
discussion/debate to not see a result.
I think I have read the whole thread, but if you have already posted
that info and I missed it, sorry.

walking boots-- which are good?
 

SMS wrote:

Phil Cook wrote:

Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
been abraded to resemble suede.

Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I
suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather which doesn't look good
unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?

Fashion. Suede looks trendy but is as porous as a sponge, hence the
need to add a membrane to boots and shoes made of it if you want water
resistance. Nubuck looks like suede but has some water resistance, not
as good as full grain leather though.

In the name of fashion some people also treat reversed leather with
the proofing treatments designed to preserve the look of suede and
nubuck. Me, I just slap on some wax and to hell with the look of them.

And speaking of fashion and branding:

1. GORE-TEX®
2. Vibram®

In the UK JCB make earth moving equipment, but they aren't the only
game in town anymore.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Am Bodach in the Mamores on a sunny day :-)
pictures at http://www.therewaslight.co.uk soonish...

walking boots-- which are good?
 

SMS wrote:

In any case, the bottom line remains the same when buying walking
(hiking) boots. First look for the necessary design elements which a

1. GORE-TEX® lining (or other breathable waterproof membrane lining) for
breathable waterproofness (nearly all mid to high end boots have this).
NEVER buy hiking boots that lack a breathable waterproof membrane lining.

SMS is doing what he does best, which is assuming he knws better than
anyone else. It is a simple and verifiable fact that Scarpa SLs and
Mantas (among many, many others) have long been favourites in the
(rather wet) UK, with both expert opinion and public acclaim through use
and sales, and they don't have any such lining.

2. Vibram® outsole for best traction (cheaper boots may have a lower
grade outsole).

Vibram are generally good, but not the only game in town.

3. Stitchdown construction (not just glued) for durability (very rare
except on extreme high end).

This effectively says it is *necessary* to get "extreme high end" boots.
But look what people /actually use/ and you'll find plenty of folk
doing a great deal without "extreme high end" boots.

4. Full-grain, all-leather upper (not split grain, not "nubuck") for
support and durability.

Those will be the most durable, but how durable will you need? For a
lot of applications fabric boots will be more comfortable because
there's far less effort needed to bend them as you walk, plus more
breathable, and if you can buy three pairs for the same money and
wouldn't ever have worn out the leathers anyway, why bother paying all
that money for something which is just harder to walk in? Serious
leather boots have their place, certainly, but for a lot of applications
they're simply overkill.

Once you find all the boots with the necessary design elements you begin
to narrow down your choices based on other factors like fit, aesthetics,
price, etc..

Though "necessary design elements" in typical walking footwear don't
actually include Goretex, Vibram, Stitchdown construction or full grain
leather. How do I know? From doing lots of walking in footwear with
variously only some or absolutely none of those features.

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/

walking boots-- which are good?
 

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:57:52 +0000, Phil Cook
wrote:

SMS wrote:

Phil Cook wrote:

Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
been abraded to resemble suede.

Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I
suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather which doesn't look good
unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?

Fashion. Suede looks trendy but is as porous as a sponge, hence the
need to add a membrane to boots and shoes made of it if you want water
resistance. Nubuck looks like suede but has some water resistance, not
as good as full grain leather though.

In the name of fashion some people also treat reversed leather with
the proofing treatments designed to preserve the look of suede and
nubuck. Me, I just slap on some wax and to hell with the look of them.

My first boots were suede and very comfortable. I bought them
thinking that I could just brush the mud off when dry. Despite using
the various sprays though, they did get sodden and eventually cracked
and split along a crease, long before they were worn out. Now
relegated to garden duty. :)

Well-dubbined leather is now my finish of choice.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker

walking boots-- which are good?
 

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:43:34 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

No its not with his silly claim that they will never become comfortable.

I worded it rather poorly.

You did indeed.

What I should have said was that boots or shoes that are
uncomfortable because of poor fit will never become comfortable.

Still wrong. Those ones of mine were uncomforable because of
a poor fit did become the most comfortable I have ever owned.

Boots and shoes made of real leather can wear in to be comfortable.

They can also be stretched a bit.
I saw a shoe-stretcher that could widen shoes up to width D - for me,
that's narrow. It's easy to get D, so a stretcher needs to go well beyond
that.
--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.

walking boots-- which are good?
 

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:28:57 +0000, Peter Clinch wrote:

-Goretex membrane for breathability and water-proofing

then it's considerably less relevant. And has been noted elsewhere you
really don't need Goretex, and if you do want a lining Goretex isn't the
only game in town (consider eVent, for example, which is demonstrably
more breathable).

Any opinions yet on Hi-Tec's IonMask proofing? Looks good in print, but
does it work?
--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.

walking boots-- which are good?
 

SMS wrote:
Bottom line is that all the experts agree that you should _never_
purchase a pair of hiking boots, walking shoes, etc., that do not
have a GoreTex (or competing product) membrane, if you expect to have
them ever get wet.

Have you spoken with every expert? Nearly everybody who successfully
hikes the entire length of the Pacific Crest Trail does so in trail
runners. Is 2650 miles in one season enough to make one an expert?

Scott Williamson, who has hiked at least 40,000 miles, wears running shoes.

Not only would these people not consider GoreTex important, they would
specifically advise against it. The reason is that under some
conditions, your feet will stay drier without it.

The OP didn't even mention hiking. He said walking. Boots of any sort
are overkill for walking.

walking boots-- which are good?
 

Scott Bryce wrote:

snip

The OP didn't even mention hiking. He said walking. Boots of any sort
are overkill for walking.

That depends on which language you speak. Here in the UK (and the OP
would appear to reside here) hiking is not a word in general use to
describe recreational walking. Hill walking is frequently referred to as
walking without the prefix and 'rambling' used to describe walking in
the countryside away from paved surfaces.

Two nations divided by a common language as GBS is alleged to have said.

walking boots-- which are good?
 

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:50:26 -0800 (PST), hbol
wrote:

I sincerely hope, Mr Bently, that you will come back and tells us what
you ended up buying, and why. This thread seems like a lot of
discussion/debate to not see a result.



Prolly just turn out to be a troll...
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker

walking boots-- which are good?
 

Phil Cook wrote:
SMS wrote:

Phil Cook wrote:

Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
been abraded to resemble suede.
Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I
suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather which doesn't look good
unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?

Fashion. Suede looks trendy but is as porous as a sponge, hence the
need to add a membrane to boots and shoes made of it if you want water
resistance. Nubuck looks like suede but has some water resistance, not
as good as full grain leather though.

Then Nubuck boots should cost more, not less, than full grain leather
boots. This is not the case (at least in the U.S.) where the most
expensive boots are full grain leather, with GoreTex membrane, and a
Vibram sole. Give up any of those three key features and the price comes
down.

I bought my 11 y.o. son a perfectly good pair of full grain leather
boots at Wal-Mart for $30. No GoreTex, no Vibram, but fine for his easy
boy scout treks. The next boots though will have to be better as the
weight of the packs and the difficulty of the trips increases, and they
don't care about the weather. Boots are required for safety; they won't
allow anyone the backpack trips without boots that have ankle support
and sufficient traction.

walking boots-- which are good?
 

Phil Cook wrote
Rod Speed wrote
SMS wrote:
Phil Cook wrote:

What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.
Fit, fit and fit are the important things, all else is supplementary.

If the boots are full-grain leather then there can be a break-in
period where they become more comfortable.

There can indeed and that does in fact happen routinely.

And it doesnt have to be 'full-grain' leather either.

But for cheaper boots of nubuck, suede, or fabric, they probably
won't become more comfortable than they are at the time of purchase.

Suede does too, its leather with the best of them.

Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away.

Nope, just leather with the finish that some prefer.

It is the inner side of the skin with the outer taken off.

Yes. So the same considerations apply with it becoming more comfortable over time.

Nubuck is the outer that has been abraded to resemble suede.

Yes, which is why said what I said.

Full grain leather has the outer intact. A lot of winter boots intended for rough conditions
are made with the reverse side out to protect the face of the leather from wear.

All irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether some
boots and shoes do become more comfortable over time.

walking boots-- which are good?
 

SMS wrote
Phil Cook wrote

Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is
the outer that has been abraded to resemble suede.

Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather
which doesn't look
good unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?

In any case, the bottom line remains the same when buying walking
(hiking) boots. First look for the necessary design elements which a

1. GORE-TEX® lining (or other breathable waterproof membrane lining)
for breathable waterproofness (nearly all mid to high end boots have
this). NEVER buy hiking boots that lack a breathable waterproof
membrane lining.

I do that last all the time. I just dont need boots with a waterproof lining.

2. Vibram® outsole for best traction

I dont need the best traction either. What I actually
need is the best confort and very long wearing instead.

(cheaper boots may have a lower grade outsole).

I am quite capable of checking the outsole.

3. Stitchdown construction (not just glued) for durability (very rare except on extreme high end).

So its stupid to demand that, it restricts your choice far too much.

Makes more sense to accept that they may not be quite as durable,
but much better value and vastly more range to choose from.

4. Full-grain, all-leather upper (not split grain, not "nubuck") for support

I dont need support. My ankles have evolved with all the support I need.

and durability.

Thats very desirable, but not absolutely essential if the price is lower
enough so you can say buy twice as many as the most expensive etc.

Once you find all the boots with the necessary design elements you
begin to narrow down your choices based on other factors like fit,
aesthetics, price, etc..

It makes no sense to do it your way on price most obviously.

Its an important consideration at the same time as considering
the design because it interacts with the design so much.

walking boots-- which are good?
 

Phil Cook wrote
SMS wrote
Phil Cook wrote

Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
been abraded to resemble suede.

Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck?
I suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather which doesn't look
good unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?

Fashion.

Not necessarily. I used to wear them just because they didnt need to be
cleaned like leather boots do. And I wear them all the time in winter too.

Suede looks trendy

Not necessarily.

but is as porous as a sponge, hence the need to add a membrane
to boots and shoes made of it if you want water resistance.

Sure, but many dont need that. Not everyone inhabits that soggy little island.

Nubuck looks like suede but has some water
resistance, not as good as full grain leather though.

In the name of fashion some people also treat reversed leather with
the proofing treatments designed to preserve the look of suede and
nubuck. Me, I just slap on some wax and to hell with the look of them.

I dont even bother with the wax.

And speaking of fashion and branding:

1. GORE-TEX®
2. Vibram®

In the UK JCB make earth moving equipment, but they aren't the only game in town anymore.

walking boots-- which are good?
 

PeterC wrote
Rod Speed wrote

No its not with his silly claim that they will never become comfortable.

I worded it rather poorly.

You did indeed.

What I should have said was that boots or shoes that are
uncomfortable because of poor fit will never become comfortable.

Still wrong. Those ones of mine were uncomforable because of
a poor fit did become the most comfortable I have ever owned.

Boots and shoes made of real leather can wear in to be comfortable.

They can also be stretched a bit.

Yeah, thats the main reason I didnt return them, I decided that it should
be feasible to stretch them if they didnt wear in by themselves. And since
I wear them all day every day in the winter, they likely would wear in.

I dont wear different boots for walking than I wear around the house in winter.

I saw a shoe-stretcher that could widen shoes up to width D

Not sure how well those work with modern glued construction.

- for me, that's narrow.

My feet arent anything special width wise, just a bit higher than average at the top of the foot.

It's easy to get D, so a stretcher needs to go well beyond that.

There's plenty of antique stretchers on ebay and some that appear to be new too.

walking boots-- which are good?
 

Roger Chapman wrote:

snip

That depends on which language you speak. Here in the UK (and the OP
would appear to reside here) hiking is not a word in general use to
describe recreational walking. Hill walking is frequently referred to as
walking without the prefix and 'rambling' used to describe walking in
the countryside away from paved surfaces.

Two nations divided by a common language as GBS is alleged to have said.

Yeah, the whole "walking boots" was a little vague. In the U.S., you
wear "hiking boots" and generally only on hilly or mountainous trails
where there's a lot of scrambling, loose rock, water, etc.. I've never
heard the term "walking boots," and I assumed that he meant hiking. For
just walking on streets, gravel paths, or relatively level trails you'd
call them walking shoes or trail running shoes. For that type of use
you'd get shoes such as:

1. Salomon XA Pro 3D Ultra GTX
2. The North Face Ultra 104 Gore-Tex XCR
3. Salomon XA Comp 4 GTX
4. Salomon XT Wings GTX
5. Vasque Blur SL GTX
6. The North Face Devils Thumb Gore-Tex XCR
7. PUMA Complete Vectana GTX

Again, if you're going to be using them in wet weather you want to be
certain that they have a waterproof breathable membrane, and actually
it's much more important for this type of footwear than for a full grain
leather boot. The sole is less important because traction isn't as much
of an issue where it will be used, and ankle support isn't necessary.

Maybe the original poster needs to spend a year in the U.S. to learn
proper English. One friend from the U.K. was in a Walgreen's here (a
drug store chain) and his wife who had just moved to the U.S. yelled
over to him, "hey Ray, do we have any rubbers in the house." On one
backpacking trip I was on, it was time to wash the dishes, the leader
asked one participant who had just moved from he U.K. to the U.S. if he
had brought along a scrubber to which he replied "I didn't know that it
was permitted."

walking boots-- which are good?
 

Scott Bryce wrote
SMS wrote

Bottom line is that all the experts agree that you should _never_
purchase a pair of hiking boots, walking shoes, etc., that do not
have a GoreTex (or competing product) membrane, if you expect to have them ever get wet.

Have you spoken with every expert? Nearly everybody who successfully
hikes the entire length of the Pacific Crest Trail does so in trail
runners. Is 2650 miles in one season enough to make one an expert?

Scott Williamson, who has hiked at least 40,000 miles, wears running shoes.

Not only would these people not consider GoreTex important, they would specifically advise against it. The reason is
that under some conditions, your feet will stay drier without it.

The OP didn't even mention hiking. He said walking. Boots of any sort are overkill for walking.

Nope, I prefer elastic sided boots just for the convenience of putting
them on and off and they are more convenient for grass seeds as well.

I wear them all day every day in winter and they are a lot eaier
to keep looking decent than with modern running shoes etc.

walking boots-- which are good?
 

SMS wrote
Phil Cook wrote
SMS wrote
Phil Cook wrote

Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner
side of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer
that has been abraded to resemble suede.

Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade
leather which doesn't look good unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?

Fashion. Suede looks trendy but is as porous as a sponge, hence the need to add a membrane to boots and shoes made of
it if you want water resistance. Nubuck looks like suede but has some water resistance, not as good as full grain
leather though.

Then Nubuck boots should cost more, not less, than full grain leather boots.

Nope, not if they can start with cheaper leather.

This is not the case (at least in the U.S.) where the most expensive boots are full grain leather, with GoreTex
membrane, and a Vibram sole. Give up any of those three key features and the price comes down.

You cant easily separate that from just what the more expansive manufacturers choose to do tho.

It could even be as basic as whether its made in china etc.

I bought my 11 y.o. son a perfectly good pair of full grain leather boots at Wal-Mart for $30. No GoreTex, no Vibram,
but fine for his easy boy scout treks.

They're also fine for many adult's much more extensive use.

The next boots though will have to be better as the weight of the packs and the difficulty of the trips increases, and
they don't care about the weather. Boots are required for safety; they won't allow anyone the backpack trips without
boots that have ankle support and sufficient traction.

More fool them.

walking boots-- which are good?
 

Is this really a gardening topic???

Roger Chapman wrote:

snip

That depends on which language you speak. Here in the UK (and the OP
would appear to reside here) hiking is not a word in general use to
describe recreational walking. Hill walking is frequently referred to as
walking without the prefix and 'rambling' used to describe walking in
the countryside away from paved surfaces.

Two nations divided by a common language as GBS is alleged to have said.

Yeah, the whole "walking boots" was a little vague. In the U.S., you
wear "hiking boots" and generally only on hilly or mountainous trails
where there's a lot of scrambling, loose rock, water, etc.. I've never
heard the term "walking boots," and I assumed that he meant hiking. For
just walking on streets, gravel paths, or relatively level trails you'd
call them walking shoes or trail running shoes. For that type of use
you'd get shoes such as:

1. Salomon XA Pro 3D Ultra GTX
2. The North Face Ultra 104 Gore-Tex XCR
3. Salomon XA Comp 4 GTX
4. Salomon XT Wings GTX
5. Vasque Blur SL GTX
6. The North Face Devils Thumb Gore-Tex XCR
7. PUMA Complete Vectana GTX

Again, if you're going to be using them in wet weather you want to be
certain that they have a waterproof breathable membrane, and actually
it's much more important for this type of footwear than for a full grain
leather boot. The sole is less important because traction isn't as much
of an issue where it will be used, and ankle support isn't necessary.

Maybe the original poster needs to spend a year in the U.S. to learn
proper English. One friend from the U.K. was in a Walgreen's here (a
drug store chain) and his wife who had just moved to the U.S. yelled
over to him, "hey Ray, do we have any rubbers in the house." On one
backpacking trip I was on, it was time to wash the dishes, the leader
asked one participant who had just moved from he U.K. to the U.S. if he
had brought along a scrubber to which he replied "I didn't know that it
was permitted."

walking boots-- which are good?
 

Scott Bryce wrote:
SMS wrote:
Bottom line is that all the experts agree that you should _never_
purchase a pair of hiking boots, walking shoes, etc., that do not
have a GoreTex (or competing product) membrane, if you expect to have
them ever get wet.

Have you spoken with every expert?

Spoken? No.

Nearly everybody who successfully
hikes the entire length of the Pacific Crest Trail does so in trail
runners. Is 2650 miles in one season enough to make one an expert?

No.

walking boots-- which are good?
 

SMS wrote:


Yeah, the whole "walking boots" was a little vague. In the U.S., you
wear "hiking boots" and generally only on hilly or mountainous trails
where there's a lot of scrambling, loose rock, water, etc.. I've never
heard the term "walking boots," and I assumed that he meant hiking. For
just walking on streets, gravel paths, or relatively level trails you'd
call them walking shoes or trail running shoes. For that type of use
you'd get shoes such as:

1. Salomon XA Pro 3D Ultra GTX
2. The North Face Ultra 104 Gore-Tex XCR
3. Salomon XA Comp 4 GTX
4. Salomon XT Wings GTX
5. Vasque Blur SL GTX
6. The North Face Devils Thumb Gore-Tex XCR
7. PUMA Complete Vectana GTX

Again, if you're going to be using them in wet weather you want to be
certain that they have a waterproof breathable membrane, and actually
it's much more important for this type of footwear than for a full grain
leather boot. The sole is less important because traction isn't as much
of an issue where it will be used, and ankle support isn't necessary.

Maybe the original poster needs to spend a year in the U.S. to learn
proper English.



"There, but for the grace of God, goes God."

walking boots-- which are good?
 

On 2010-02-23, SMS wrote:
That's the first time I've _ever_ heard of _anyone_ disliking GoreTex in
a boot.

We're a quiet bunch.
--
Chick Tower

For e-mail: arh DOT sent DOT towerboy AT xoxy DOT net

walking boots-- which are good?
 

SMS wrote:

Boots are required for safety; they won't
allow anyone the backpack trips without boots that have ankle support
and sufficient traction.

Boots are /widely perceived/ to be needed for safety. That's not the
same thing.

Take them orienteering instead and they'll be on rougher terrain with
more need of good soles, and hardly anyone will think they're best off
in boots with Vibram soles and ankle support. Certainly almost all of
the experts won't be in them.

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/

walking boots-- which are good?
 

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:49:00 +0000, Peter Clinch
wrote:

Take them orienteering instead and they'll be on rougher terrain with
more need of good soles, and hardly anyone will think they're best off
in boots with Vibram soles and ankle support. Certainly almost all of
the experts won't be in them.

I've been walking 3-4 miles a day on pavements to keep in trim and in
the recent snow, I wore my boots instead of my usual North Face shoes.
As I only have short legs, I found it harder to walk as fast with the
boots because of the extra weight. This isn't usually a problem when
doing day walks across country or up hills as my pace will be more
relaxed. I can see, however, that someone concerned with speed would
prefer lighter footwear.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker

walking boots-- which are good?
 

Geoff Berrow wrote:

I've been walking 3-4 miles a day on pavements to keep in trim and in
the recent snow, I wore my boots instead of my usual North Face shoes.
As I only have short legs, I found it harder to walk as fast with the
boots because of the extra weight. This isn't usually a problem when
doing day walks across country or up hills as my pace will be more
relaxed. I can see, however, that someone concerned with speed would
prefer lighter footwear.

Indeed, but the other point to realise is that going faster doesn't
magically protect one's ankles on fast terrain. In practice it's not a
problem because a /safety requirement/ of ankle support is a red
herring. Yes, orienteers damage their ankles from time to time but not
to the extent that you ever see many in something like
http://www.jalas.com/index.php?do=pr...6&page_id=159&
rather than
http://www.jalas.com/index.php?do=pr...5&page_id=159&,
and it's not as if boot-wearers never prang theirs.

That's not to say some folk won't prefer a boot for whatever they're
doing, but a preference and a requirement for safety are quite different
things.

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/

walking boots-- which are good?
 

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
If a dander across the local farmlands had a significant degree of
commonality with a 30 mile forced march with a 30 kg pack

30kg? 60kg more like...... :-(

walking boots-- which are good?
 

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:45:10 +0000, Geoff Berrow
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:49:00 +0000, Peter Clinch
wrote:

Take them orienteering instead and they'll be on rougher terrain with
more need of good soles, and hardly anyone will think they're best off
in boots with Vibram soles and ankle support. Certainly almost all of
the experts won't be in them.

I've been walking 3-4 miles a day on pavements to keep in trim and in
the recent snow, I wore my boots instead of my usual North Face shoes.
As I only have short legs, I found it harder to walk as fast with the
boots because of the extra weight. This isn't usually a problem when
doing day walks across country or up hills as my pace will be more
relaxed. I can see, however, that someone concerned with speed would
prefer lighter footwear.

Speed isn't the only concern with weight.
After some miles of walking in comfortable but heavy boots, a knee
became painful and slightly swollen. I didn't connect it with the
boots at first, but when I doffed the boots the knee problem very
quickly disappeared.
It's possible my gait in the above ankle boots was a factor, but I'm
guessing it was mostly the swinging weight of the boots.

--Vic

walking boots-- which are good?
 

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:14:04 -0800, SMS wrote...
Maybe the original poster needs to spend a year in the U.S. to learn
proper English.

Nah, he wouldn't learn it proper like what English is spoke in England.

One friend from the U.K. was in a Walgreen's here (a
drug store chain) and his wife who had just moved to the U.S. yelled
over to him, "hey Ray, do we have any rubbers in the house." On one
backpacking trip I was on, it was time to wash the dishes, the leader
asked one participant who had just moved from he U.K. to the U.S. if he
had brought along a scrubber to which he replied "I didn't know that it
was permitted."

Just as long as he didn't have a fag in the tent.

--
Tim Jackson
lid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

walking boots-- which are good?
 

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:05:38 -0600, Vic Smith wrote:

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:45:10 +0000, Geoff Berrow
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:49:00 +0000, Peter Clinch
wrote:

Take them orienteering instead and they'll be on rougher terrain with
more need of good soles, and hardly anyone will think they're best off
in boots with Vibram soles and ankle support. Certainly almost all of
the experts won't be in them.

I've been walking 3-4 miles a day on pavements to keep in trim and in
the recent snow, I wore my boots instead of my usual North Face shoes.
As I only have short legs, I found it harder to walk as fast with the
boots because of the extra weight. This isn't usually a problem when
doing day walks across country or up hills as my pace will be more
relaxed. I can see, however, that someone concerned with speed would
prefer lighter footwear.

Speed isn't the only concern with weight.
After some miles of walking in comfortable but heavy boots, a knee
became painful and slightly swollen. I didn't connect it with the
boots at first, but when I doffed the boots the knee problem very
quickly disappeared.
It's possible my gait in the above ankle boots was a factor, but I'm
guessing it was mostly the swinging weight of the boots.

I'm also guessing, but I think it's more likely that you walk differently
in boots. In running, there are advocates of barefoot running, largely on
the grounds of reduced injuries. There was a study that showed that
injuries increased in proportion to the cost of the running shoes.

Heavy boots can make your feet feel very protected, but may mean that you
stride out in a way that puts more strain on other parts of your body.

--
rob

walking boots-- which are good?
 

rob wrote:

Heavy boots can make your feet feel very protected, but may mean that you
stride out in a way that puts more strain on other parts of your body.

I don't know whether the confidence will affect gait or not, but I'm
pretty sure a stiffer sole will because your foot doesn't get to bend
nearly as much as "normal" walking has evolved. And because walking is
different, it's probably using muscles that don't usually get so involved.

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/

walking boots-- which are good?
 

On 23 Feb, 10:49, Christopher Loffredo wrote:
SMS wrote:

Look for the following features:

1. GORE-TEX® lining.

2. Vibram® outsole

3. Stitchdown construction (not just glued)

4. Full-grain, all-leather upper (not split grain, not "nubuck").

Though many, including myself, dislike Gore-Tex in a boot.

It requires a different construction method, which leads to the boot not
lasting as long, can create a sweatier environment, starts leaking
fairly quickly and then does a good job of keeping the water *in*.

Unfortunately, Gore-Tex-less boots are getting harder and harder to find....

Gore-Tex YUK!!!

walking boots-- which are good?
 

On 19 Feb, 11:58, "john bently" wrote:

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.

This is not so simple a question as you might think. I've taken to
wearing fabric-sided walking boots for general travel through airports
and cities, and even for walking to the shops. Most "fashion shoes"
are now so paedatrically illiterate that even wearing them to walk
down stairs is outside their design range.

Problem with walking boots is that, despite all the manufacturers
protestations that they know so much about feet, they don't usually
make them in different width fittings! I can't get my feet into
Brasher boots at all, but the pair of Contour boots I have (similar to
their Nevada but 5 years old) fit me like a glove and are so supremely
comfortable I am tempted to wear them everywhere. List price now is
about 75 quid, I paid less than 60 5 years ago in one of those
villages between Dartmoor and the A38.

I've just finished a 6 week trip round Europe, wearing WoodWorld
safety boots at work and a pair of Gore-tex Agile boots in the
evenings and at weekends. I had to go to a meeting wearing a pair of
Clark's leather brogues that cost over a hundred quid and I had a
blister on the ball of my feet after 10 minutes.

I buy my 'everyday' boots from a workwear shop in Stamford, trying on
what they have that will fit my high instep and wide forefoot, and
only rarely pay more than £35. I used to buy Hi-Tec boots from them
down the years, but they seem determined to go the fashion route now
and make footwear for youngsters who want to look like robocop. They
are narrower at the front too.

The soles on cheaper workwear-shop boots seem to survive walking on
paving and the steel decks of ships for twice as long as those on e.g.
Berghaus or karrimoor branded leather boots.

Don't overlook Doc Martens and the Airwear sole either. They were
originally designed as industrial footwear with a difference: they
were comfortable to wear and did not feel like a steel box on your
foot after 20 minutes.

I had one pair of very cheap boots with mock-leather uppers and a
padded ankle band of some synthetic rubbish that I wore for several
years. They had a good vibram sole, and I changed the foot liner for
an expensive one (all of two quid). Happening to be in the USA once I
wore them for 3 weeks walking round the Big Bend national park and
they were perfectly fine. Ten years later I still wore them for
gardening and walking the dogs, until the welt failed. I'm sure they
cost me less than a tenner in Grantham Market. Vibram and Goodyear
workshoe soles are worth looking out for, especially if long life is
important to you.

walking boots-- which are good?
 

On 23 Feb, 17:03, Christopher Loffredo wrote:

My non-Gore-Tex boots are certainly neither cheap nor low-end. In fact,
full-leather non-Gore-Text boots usually cost as much or more than the
ones with.

That would be my other bit of advice - keep a weather eye on prices.
I've seen a 3-to-one variation in the same boots from farm shop in
Lincolnshire to Barnard Castle hardware store to dedicated outdoor
hyperstore in manchester

walking boots-- which are good?
 

bobharvey wrote:

Problem with walking boots is that, despite all the manufacturers
protestations that they know so much about feet, they don't usually
make them in different width fittings!

Can't speak for the UK, but in the U.S. the higher end hiking boots are
generally available in two or three different widths. But if you're
getting a lower end boot then you're usually out of luck--they don't
want to manufacture SKUs that sell in low volumes if the product is cheap.

Ironically, two stores I've seen a wide selection of widths for shoes
(not boots) are the Sketchers store (not the other stores that sell
Sketchers) and Wal-Mart. I thought it was rather strange that a store
like Wal-Mart would have a better choice of wide shoes than most shoe
stores.

In any case, the bottom line remains the same when buying walking
(hiking) boots. First look for the necessary design elements which a

1. GORE-TEX® lining (or other breathable waterproof membrane lining) for
breathable waterproofness (nearly all mid to high end boots have this).
NEVER buy hiking boots that lack a breathable waterproof membrane lining.

2. Vibram® outsole for best traction (cheaper boots may have a lower
grade outsole).

3. Stitchdown construction (not just glued) for durability (very rare
except on extreme high end).

4. Full-grain, all-leather upper (not split grain, not "nubuck") for
support and durability.

Once you find all the boots with the necessary design elements you begin
to narrow down your choices based on other factors like fit, aesthetics,
price, etc..

walking boots-- which are good?
 

SMS wrote:

In any case, the bottom line remains the same when buying walking
(hiking) boots. First look for the necessary design elements which a

1. GORE-TEX® lining (or other breathable waterproof membrane lining) for
breathable waterproofness (nearly all mid to high end boots have this).
NEVER buy hiking boots that lack a breathable waterproof membrane lining.

sigh What was that about the constant repitition of an idea
imprinting it in the consciousness of an audience? Didn't it have
something to do with Hitler?

It seems it did...

"But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with
unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and
repeat them over and over." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 184

You only need a waterproof membrane in your boots if they are made of
materials that are not inherently waterproof. Treated leather is
already a breathable waterproof material.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Am Bodach in the Mamores on a sunny day :-)
pictures at http://www.therewaslight.co.uk soonish...

walking boots-- which are good?
 

On 27 Feb, 20:36, Phil Cook wrote:

You only need a waterproof membrane in your boots if they are made of
materials that are not inherently waterproof. Treated leather is
already a breathable waterproof material.

I'd go along with that. I've got gore-tex boots but I've been
perfectly happy with ones that didn't have it. proper leather boots
have a tradition going back, ooh, millenia.

For much of the late 90s young blokes in Europe bought second hand
east german airforce boots, which laced up to somewhere near the
chin. They wore them for work, cycling, hill walking, and (in the
case of some I knew) for job interviews. The construction was leather,
leather, with added leather. They were fantastically popular with
people who had no money, and seemed nearly indestructible and
comfortable enough to sleep in.

walking boots-- which are good?
 

Phil Cook wrote

sigh What was that about the constant repitition of an idea
imprinting it in the consciousness of an audience? Didn't it have
something to do with Hitler?

Gosh, Phil. That's desperately close to Godwin's law :-D

Or was that the idea ;-)

Chris

walking boots-- which are good?
 

On 25 Feb, 09:30, Phil Cook wrote:

I worded it rather poorly. What I should have said was that boots or
shoes that are uncomfortable because of poor fit will never become
comfortable.

There is much in that, although the human being will adapt to almost
anything. My father told of being issued the boots he wore at D-day:

MD: "Sarge, these boots don't bend anywhere!"
Sergeant: "No, lad, but your feet do. Put em on now"

I do think that comfortable fit, at the front and round the heel are
really important ways to choose a boot. I've also had to reject some
that simply don't come high enough up the ankle. There also needs to
be a clear space under the instep - trying to match the whole sole to
the arch of the foot is fraught with risks of blisters. Don't forget
that your forefoot spreads sideways (and a tiny bit forward) after
walking a while, especially if you normally wear fashion shoes in
'real life'.

I tried some anti-shoes in Germany last week - they had a wierd shaped
sole which had a convex curve from front to back. Standing still only
the bit under your instep touched the ground, the toe and heel (there
wasn't a heel) had a good 10mm of clearance. Designed by all sorts
of sports experts I thought they were just horrid. I might be wrong,
but that's how they seemed to me.

(http://www.mbtshoe.co.uk/ these seem to be similar idea, but less
extreme)

walking boots-- which are good?
 

On 19 Feb, 13:49, ®óñ© © ²°¹° wrote:
After you've got the boots, don't forget that it's virtually illegal
nowadays to walk outside the house without the use of Nordic Walking
Sticks, even if you're just popping round the corner for a paper.

Tell me about it. I was perforated in about a million places by
people carrying them on the tram in Zurich, just to get from the house
to the tram stop, or up the stairs at work.

Now that we arn't allowed to carry swords as part of our daily office
work, someone has come up with the idea of carrying two spears instead.

walking boots-- which are good?
 

Phil Cook wrote:

imprinting it in the consciousness of an audience? Didn't it have
something to do with Hitler?

Godwin's Law. You lose. You made a mistake and I'm man enough to admit it.

walking boots-- which are good?
 

Phil Cook wrote:
You only need a waterproof membrane in your boots if they are made of
materials that are not inherently waterproof. Treated leather is
already a breathable waterproof material.

You only need a waterproof boot if you intend to walk for long periods
of time in wet conditions or in mud.