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

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)

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

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/

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!!!

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.

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

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..

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...

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

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.