Question:
I see in backpackers gear reveiw issue this year that they are
suggesting that you don't really need
heavy boots at all for most hiking. They had some lightweight boots
that the reviewers were recommending for thru hiking even. I am going
trekking in the Himalayas this summer and will be spending some time
in Delhi. I wonder since a pony will be carrying my gear if a light
hiker will be enough. I don't really want to take a mid weight leather
boot and have my feet get all hot in delhi, assuming that I only take
one pair of shoes. Any ideas, would a mid cut light hiker be enough?
Answer:
If you have to ask, you probably need both. I am a fan of boots, but have
been using very stable running shoes daily and for day hikes (Brooks
Beast if you care). I would not go through high grass/bush with them
(collect seeds etc.) But they are surprisingly lightweight and I would
carry them in my backpack if I'd travel so far. Your pony too weak to
carry a spare pair of runners that double as camp shoes?
In the orthopaedic unit next door to me an Indian researcher did some
work on the incidence of ankle injuries in walking populations, and it
turns out actually /no footwear at all/ is the one least likely to
result in a break. "Common sense" is a notoriously unreliable guide!
A high cuff on a boot is very good at transferring load to the leg, but
it reduces the mobility of the joint which in turn can stop your feet
conforming to the terrain, and if you /do/ start to go over then beyond
a certain point they actually lever you into more trouble than if you
didn't have them on.
Orienteers typically cover rougher terrain than hikers and at greater
speeds, yet they don't generally wear high cuff boots... If that
resulted in widespread ankle carnage, I think they would! High cuff
boots are only much sense if your ankles are doing something really
outside of the ordinary, and normal walking on a trail without a big
load is *not* out of the ordinary. By losing the cuffs and heavy build
your feet are free to move as they have evolved to. Ankle support is a
much-vaunted reason to wear heavy boots, but ankles have been doing
pretty well for millennia without them: they are well up to the job of
walking and unless one has unusually weak specimens then they get all
the support they need from the bones, tendons and muscles evolved for
the job. Human feet are not intrinsically weak, and it's quite normal
for fairly big chunks of the world's population to walk around with none
at all.
The OP was planning a trek in the Himalayas. Most of the pictures I see
from there have the locals not wearing heavy boots, probably because
experience of living there for generations tells them they're not
actually a Big Help. These days I do most of my hiking in shoes and
Tevas, my feet are less tired at the end of the day and I'm typically
more sure-footed over broken ground.
