Choose your favorite color 1-5 @luxxuryvibez

Choose your favorite color 1-5 @luxxuryvibez

Another gentle debate in recent years within the hiking / backpack community has been hiking boots versus hiking shoes. Some do not think it is as much of a debate as many hikers and backpackers have just made the transition to hiking shoes, better known as trail runners. Contrary to what some people think, not everyone wears hiking shoes when they are hiking. Hiking boots are still alive, and they are by no means outdated or outdated, as some would think you think. This article is not supposed to argue for either point of view, just make some basic observations between the two types of shoes.

The following are some statements from other hikers, backpackers or authors on the topic of hiking shoes vs hiking shoes. These have been collected from several other articles on the subject, as well as blog posts & forums.

Hiking boots are heavier than hiking shoes.
Hiking shoes, which are lighter in weight, reduce the stress on the feet and legs as you walk over several miles.
The boots snap.
Boots usually last longer.
Boots stay wet longer than shoes.
The better footrest that boots provide is a myth.
Water comes into boots easier than shoes.
Feet are cooler in the shoes.
Boots cost more than shoes.
Boots require more break-in time.
Boots are better suited to snowy conditions.

These are just 11 quick statements I've read here and there in recent years. For many, it seems, no matter what, the shoes win hand down. Some people walk in hiking shoes all year round, that's good. Again, I think this is a case of what fits better with the terrain you cross. Hiking boots are better suited to certain conditions. Hiking shoes, I think, also offer a great advantage over boots in other situations. Here are some of the following observations from my point of view.

Hiking boots are heavier than shoes. I agree with. Although there are different types of materials used in hiking shoes, such as whole grain leather, split leather, nubuck and synthetic, the boots are on average heavier than hiking shoes. There are different types of boots made for different conditions, and this is what must be considered when deciding whether to wear shoes or shoes.

Hiking shoes, because they are lighter, take off your feet, legs and back. Again, I agree. A study conducted many years ago by the US Army Research Institute for Environmental Medicine revealed that 1 pound on foot used as much energy as having 6 pounds in the backpack. If this is true, it is obvious that walking shoes due to being lighter would save wear and tear on the body.

The boots snap. This is something that I think is completely subordinate to every single hiker. I use light hiking shoes on most of my hikes. They are not contracted on my feet.

Boots last longer. Part of me leans toward a yes, but reluctantly. Depending on the style boot, a pair of boots can last longer than a pair of shoes. Heavy leather shoes built for mountaineering will surpass both lighter shoes and shoes down. This type of luggage space can be solved more than once, proving that the sole will wear out long before the actual luggage arrives. I have seen people wear shoes faster than I have worn shoes at the same time. How a person walks does a lot to determine the life of a shoe or shoe.

The boots stay wet longer. Again, this depends on the type of boot. Heavy leather boots will take a long time to dry when they are very wet. Lightweight boots made of fabric and nubuck leather can dry at the same time as a pair of hiking shoes. The amount of material in the boot or shoe & the materials themselves determine the drying time.

Boots do not provide better footrests. Depending on the type of boot, they actually provide better footrests. High-cut boots can help with the ankle and give more leverage on uneven tracks or longways.

Water comes into boots easier than shoes. This statement does not make sense to me. If you wear either mid-cut or high-cut boots and walk through a few inches of water, the boot protects your feet more than a low-cut shoe. To me this is obvious. Along with a few skates, water will have a harder time getting into the boot and getting your feet wet.

Feet are cooler in the shoes. Another point I agree with. Because the amount and thickness of materials used in their construction, a hiking shoe is lighter and will be cooler to wear. If you are walking in an area that is extremely dry and warm, shoes may be a better choice for you.

Boots cost more than shoes. This is generally true. The average cost of boots is anywhere from $ 120-170. Shoes are on average were from $ 30-120. But compared to the life of each type of shoe it is possible to spend less for a pair of boots than for 2-3 pairs of shoes.

Boots take longer to break into. For heavy leather shoes, the answer is definitely yes. But with the light hiking shoes on the market today, this feature is very comparable. But I give the edge to shoes on this.

Boots are better suited to snowy conditions. If there is a lot of crowding, yes, boots should be chosen in this situation. Still, I have seen and know hikers who still wear hiking shoes with a few inches of snow on the ground. If you just pass through such an area, it probably won't hinder you too much. But for winter hiking in known snow country I think it is stupid not to wear any kind of hiking shoe.

What it ultimately comes down to is your personal preference. There is really no right or wrong answer to which is better to walk in, boots or shoes. It depends on you. No one can tell you who feels better on your feet, who are more comfortable or even who will last longer. These are all objects for your walking personality, how you walk. Go into your local outfit and try on a pair of boots and shoes and then decide. Once you have decided, go out and let things work! Even if you buy something you are not completely satisfied with, as long as they do not cause pain, just use them until it is time for a new pair.