Backpacker Fact-Checker, #1: Shoe Weight
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- This video series will take a skeptical look at some of the Trail Tales told frequently about backpacking, often without evidence or references.
In each episode, I’ll do my best to try and track down the source of each claim so that you can make your own, informed decisions about the truth and/or usefulness of the supposed information.
Episode #1 examines the issue of shoe weight, and the familiar rule:
“One pound of weight on the feet equals five pounds in your pack”
View the Backpacker Fact-Checker Series here:
• Backpacker Fact-Checker
Clarification on the ratio of a pound on your feet = ? pounds on your back...
The second study included a table where those ratios are broken down by speed for men and women separately:
Speed (km/h) Men Women
4 3.4 1.9
5.25 3.5 2.5
6.5 4.7 2.6
Differences in stride length and gait were suggested as reasons for the difference between men and women.
Then THAT needs to be studied...
Why no analysis on uphill vs flat?
Also, let's consider the deltas by weight.
Assumptions:
- 75kg person
- 1kg weight difference between shoe and boot pairs
The delta VO2 % was pretty stable around 8%.
The overall mass difference is 1.3%.
This suggests the difference in footwear (weight+biomechanics) has a ~6.2x greater impact than adding 1kg to a person's body mass, at all speeds. Super interesting!
Don't know if it's worth doing an entire video on, but I'm super curious to know if nylon packs really soak up water and just how much water they're supposedly absorbing during a rain storm.
Interesting & relevant. From my own experience as an urban walker and worker on concrete floors and sidewalks, reliable research in this subject matter is difficult to find. I appreciate your effort and approach.
I love what you're doing, please don't stop!
Slow and steady! 😉
Should do one on if stiff boots like combat boots actually reduce ankle injuries or not.
Perceived needed ankle support is the biggest reason I see people choosing boots
I'll have to see what I can find.
From research I looked at a while ago, and talking to a family member who is a huge hiker/alpiner and physical
therapist, the support boots give comes from their resistance to flex (the same thing that costs you energy), an ankle brace is more effective for providing joint support, however boots also provide physical protection in a way gaiters do not. Such as your foot slipping and scrapping along a rock. Recommendation leaned towards if you do not require extra support from pre-existing conditions it is better to go with lighter and more flexible footwear, the flexibility can help improve joint strength in the long term without the reliance of boot/brace stiffness/support.
This is exactly the reason for me. EVERY long hike I go on, I have a moment where my ankle twists (I'm normally exhausted at this point) and credit the boot as the thing preventing that from being a serious injury.
My reason for choosing boots is also to maintain dry feet over longer time and more protection overall.
Add this, a soft sold shoe does a better job of laying down surface area on jagged and uneven rocks. I think that's another reason trail runners are a decent option@@FirePrank6
I deeply appreciate you clarifying terms. People often make fallacious arguments or innocently misunderstand someone's statements due to equivocation on terms like "significant".
For the last 10 years I have hiked in everything from barefoot (not many miles) to Teva sandal (800 miles) to Altra LonePeak (2000 miles) to Merrell Vapor Glove (at leave 4000 miles). The less weight and the more minimal I go the easier the days seem. This year I am kicking off the 3000 miles of planned trail with combat boots because I am really sick of buying a new pair of shoes every 2-500 miles. I bought the lightest most breathable and least supportive I could find. I never carry more than 15 pounds in my pack, I am really curious to see how the added boot weight effects things. I am wearing Danners, 38oz for the pair, they are extremely flexible and feel like a regular hiking boot on my feet.
Clicked so fast there's not even audio- such is my love for this content
YT: “the video must finish processing before it will be available”. 😵💫
Already refreshed, watched at 2x, and shared with my backpacking Slack channel. Philosophy changed!
It is telling seemingly no one but yourself went to the source of the claim! Thanks for dispelling my false assumptions!
When I found the study, I fully expected a short video just saying: “rule confirmed”. The more I read, the more interesting it got!
So pumped for a new vid! Saving to watch on my run tomorrow
I know for me, all the additional support the boots provide really outweighs the minimal added weight.
I hear you, especially in light of the flexible, lightweight options available these days.
@@GearSkeptic request for future video: how much “ankle support” (i.e. roll protection) do boots actually provide? I’ve rolled ankles in both boots and shoes without injury in either case. Only times I’ve wished I was wearing boots is when my ankles get smashed by rocks.
@@jcorkable That right there is why I go with boots! Abrasion protection, not ankle joint support.
For me, like others have stated, the 4-6 inch boot height provides protection from abrasion and serves to keep some debris out but doesn’t necessarily prevent turning an ankle. An 8” boot will do so but at that height weight and retention of more heat and moisture become a factor. The most important aspect of more supportive footwear is a less flexible sole that provides more support when you step down on an uneven surface. More flexible footwear will too often allow my foot to roll potentially causing an ankle sprain. It’s always a trade off between weight versus support. The sweet spot for me seems to be approach shoes. They are stiffer in the sole and forefoot by design but are not much heavier than more flexible trail runners. La Sportiva TX4 is my preferred choice.
I love this video so much, simply because it's such a great and succinct example of how to review literature properly.
Thanks so much! Exactly what I was going for 😄
As not a serious backpacker I never heard that 1 pounds on your feet = 5 on your back, but it does explain why the first time i went ski touring I couldn't really lift my legs for a day
I have to thank Brady Patterson at Outdoor Adventure School for directing me to your video. Very well done explanation/investigation - finally with a scientific foundation! I found it very informative and useful. Oh, and nice hands by the way...
🖐🏼🤚🏼 🤓
A note on military boots, the high (10in) top of the boot actually causes long term tendon and muscle strain injuries based on a mix of VA claims data and anecdotal case studies. Many special forces groups and individual units have switched to mid-height (6in) tops in order to retain the ankle support needed for rough terrain while relieving the strain caused by this dated boot design that is partly retained due to uniform traditions. The need for higher boot tops to protect against abrasions has gone away with our shift to urban and vehicle-based combat, so the uniform is finally shifting to something more ergonomic!
Good to know!
I think that's a significant misreading of a statistic out of context though. I wouldn't take very general VA data like that make a more specific claim on footwear. LITERALLY EVERY GRUNT would tell you in context that Infantry guys are made to do wildly unhealthy shit on ruck marches for your feet....and ankles....and back....and shoulders. The simpler explanation is its from overloading line infantry with more weight and stuff. And old, extremely well documented issue. And one created out of operational need, "two is one" attitudes and leadership having no incentive to lower a pack list. Which probably isn't going to change anytime soon, its literally a back-and-forth as old as the Roman Legions.
In the context of SF guys? Yeah sure, they are often working with less weight and have an actual input and choice in the matter. Which is why you see commercial hiking boots and the occasional tactical sneaker.
The idea that somehow the shift to mechanized infantry is "new" is....an odd argument?
A counterpoint to all this is Hotshot wildfire crews. There are the old school all leather, super stiff supper supportive logger style boots. And for about 15 years there have existed of a variety of 6 inch hiker style boots certified for fire use. The overwhelming consensus is hiker style boots are all well and good for engine crews or fire crews operating with just a simple gear belt rig. But anyone running hiker boots in a Type 2 IA or hotshot crews? With the weight of a saw, gas, everything else you learn very very rapidly why everyone owns Whites and Nicks.
I've volunteered as a wildland firefighter in limited capacity, not a hotshot, but I was required to wear the boots and clothing while doing controlled burns and even daily wear of the boots and pants when working around the station, those are still my favorite boots, White's btw. I was merely sharing what I've heard from some army guys. I was a Marine and we still prefer the taller boots. The anecdotal evidence is dubious but I wanted to share it all the same in case he decided to research it further. And my mentioning of mechanized infantry as new is moreso the operational focus on it becoming the majority of infantry forces post WW2, which is recent history in the field of military footwear. Thanks for adding more context though, I forgot all about my logging style boots.
One thing you see on hiking boots but not any of the combat boots I was ever issued or bought is an “Achilles notch” at the back of the boot.
@@philsmith2444on a six inch boot the notch makes a difference, on an 8 inch boot having a leather/nylon upper that is more flexible out of the box relieves a lot of the wear and tear on the Achilles tendon while breaking in the boot. My experience anyway after almost 29 years in the Marine Corps.
I love your work. Awesome job.
Just a couple of comments:
The 0.6 increase in VO2 is statistically insignificant. That means it might be 0.6, or maybe 0.0. Or even -0.6. It is unacceptably likely to be a random bump up. It doesn’t differ from the baseline reliably enough to be clear that it actually DOES differ from the baseline. So that test does not demonstrate ANY difference at 4 kph.
Also, this sort of testing (VO2) is usually done on treadmills, not trails. No way to assess any lower extremity stability effects a higher level of ankle support might confer on the typically more irregular terrain of the hiking trail. If present, improved ankle stability might translate into reduced energy expenditure over rough terrain, for example.
For me, a traditional hunting-style boot seems to end my day with more comfortable feet. Hiking boots are a close second. Trail shoes leave my feet feeling more tired. Purely subjective.
Ultimately, some personal trial gives you a feel for what feels good. And that may be the ultimate metric
Thanks for the clear description of statistical significance vs. practical or functional significance. This is something I have found challenging to explain to non-scientists when discussing scientific research.
The best part of this video is that the author understands and can explain statics to the general public! Statics is the language of power and influence and it is done in professional manner. Well done! Keep up the great work.
Thanks much! Very kind of you, sir.
Good analysis. One factor somewhat ignored is that hiking trails are usually rough. You are not just moving your feet back and forth. Instead, you must lift them, sometimes dramatically, as you step over or on roots, rocks, and other obstacles. Even if you were marching in place, there would be some energy penalty from essentially strapping varying weights to your feet and doing thousands of leg lifts. Because an intrepid hiker tries NOT to step up onto every root or rock, their body/pack stays more level while their feet do the raising and lowering, so I would expect an energy differential there.
Agreed, but those obstacles also greatly reduce your speed, which seems to lessen the penalty. The snow study seemed interesting that way. Making post-holes in snow is such slow, hard work on its own that the didn’t find any difference from boot weight.
@@GearSkeptic I’ve actually found that a little heavier and stiffer boot aids your effort moving through deeper snow especially when moving upslope and when steps have to be kicked into the snow. The same can be true for muddy slopes where a little stiffer boot allows you to gain purchase on an otherwise slick, uphill climb, by using the toe area and letting the stiffer structure of the boot support the rest of the foot as you step up. I am of the opinion that too many people have bought into the weight concerns expressed about footwear and have never worn a stiffer shoe or boot so have little understanding of the benefits and the actual trade off. The same goes for Goretex (waterproof?) lined boots versus those that are not.
Loving this, as always. I am looking forward to the installment. I have thoughts on what I like to wear and am looking forward to see how it compares with your findings. Thanks for sharing
Thank you, sir!
I imagine the average boot in 1983 is also alot heavier than modern boots today.
12:40 40 year old Leather combat boots 😆
This is genuinely phenomenal. Great research and simple but fascinating presentation format.
Thanks much! It is appreciated.
love the science, can't help wondering about benefits of supple shoes and possible correlation to bikepackers benefiting from changing to supple tires
Yay, I can't wait for the spreadsheets! 😉😉📉📉
I might be missing it from the video, but what is the delta VO2 for carrying 1 extra pound of load on torso? Without that I can’t double check the foot-to-torso conversion ratio myself.
Also, is the torso delta V02 constant for any starting torso baseline weight? I can imaging 1 extra pound of weight when you pack is already 50lb might be different to when your pack is 20lb.
discussion and conclusion in this video were poor.
In the second study discussed, there is a graph (Figure 5) shown. The vertical axis is the VO2 per kg of shoe mass.
Your second question is a good one. I didn't see any study that looked at varying packs. The 2nd study tested subjects in 3 conditions: barefoot, with boots, and with a waistpack (but not packs of varying weights). And the study mentioned quickly at the end did use pack weights that were 35% of subjects' body weight, but again not packs of different weights to see the difference.
@@GearSkepticthanks for the response. I see the scatter plot and delta oxygen uptake for different walking speed, but to get 1-to-5 ratio, that would mean I need the delta oxygen update for 1 additional lb in the pack. That doesn’t seem to be in the video, maybe it’s in the study?
Concrete example, let’s use 8km/h pace, the additional uptake for 1lb of footwear is ~120ml/kg/min according to fig 5. If 1-to-5 ratio applies at this region, it means the baseline oxygen update for 1lb addition lb of wait in pack is 120/5= 24ml/kg/min.
They don't provide the raw data. I did find a table where they break the ratios down by speed for men and women separately.
Speed (km/h) Men Women
4 3.4 1.9
5.25 3.5 2.5
6.5 4.7 2.6
I pinned this in a comment so everybody can see it.
Awesome thank you!
Did I just watch a TED talk given by Thing from the Adams family? Good stuff, that claim always seemed a bit exaggerated.
“BABE, GEARSKEPTIC POSTED”
Great video! I’ve switched from boots to shoes for hiking, but not for the energy savings. I just find that it’s better for my knees. Swinging the heavier weight of the boot at the end of the leg “lever” put more force on my knees. I would like to see a video explaining the difference between the shoes/boots and the force exerted on the knees and hips!
Interesting point and suggestion, but I believe you'd get used to the extra weight and the problem would go away if you used boots more regularly.
Good points. Adaptation complicates all those things. There are people who dismiss the need for sole stiffness over obstacles by saying you should just get your feet used to the strain. But, others talk about how that strain adds to your difficulties and energy loss.
I was going to make a similar comment. I had always heard the boot vs. shoe weight claim in terms of strain on knees, etc., not for cardio… I’d be curious if shoe weight (and type) has an effect on stress fractures (from backpacking) in the legs and feet.
@@GearSkepticRight, getting your feet “used to the strain” means the strain is still there. The stiff soles on my backpacking and mountaineering boots limit the strain that’s placed on my feet, transferring it through the boot to my legs.
I have always hiked in boots but this year, I am going to try trail runners for the first time. Two reasons: one is slightly lighter weight - I will be saving about 20 ounces in the weight of the shoes. The other reason is that the runners are quick drying which has two benefits: I won't be carrying "camp shoes" which I have always used for water crossings - saving about 12 ounces. The other benefit of quick drying shoes is that I can just plow through stream crossing, saving time by not having to switch shoes before and after the water crossing. I am concerned about more debris getting into the runners and so I plan to also use light weight gaiters.
The main reason I avoid boots is the stiff soles. I feel ao much more nimble and percise with the more flexible sole from most trail runners. I also can't stand the heat. I don't doubt that the energy expenditure is about the same, but the comfort of a trail runner is at a completely different level for me.
Interesting, I'd always heard the 5-1 number quoted but never really thought it was supposed to be taken literally, so I'm actually a little surprised it was true even if only at high speeds.
Disappointed to see no one test climbing or elevation gain though, I'd guess that a significant part of the increased effect at higher speeds comes from actually lifting your feet during running strides, rather than just swinging your leg forward, which would also apply to simply walking uphill.
Brilliant! Thanks for the fact checking!
Good video, great explanation and research
I've noticed this winter that there is a point where boots feel enough heavier that they affect my stride a lot, and hence my energy exertion. So I would guess the effects of weight would be strongest when wearing a shoe heavier than normal the first few times, like the first days in heavy insulated winter boots when you're used to lightweight trail runners.
Very informative! I have different kind of shoes and boots for hiking and the outdoors. But keep in mind that trail runners are made for running. It's just that the hiking community adopted those from the trail running community.
Well done, again!!!!
Thank you!
You're very welcome!
A glass of Justin Isosceles for your scholarship. Personally, when a "Cliff Clavin" spouts these types of claims I respond "Whatever blows your skirt up dude".
I'll toast to that!
Great stuff! I wonder if all these tests were done on a flat course because there must surly be more energy expended ascending (and, maybe descending) with greater weights on your feet.
Agreed! There should be more energy expended going up hill. But, that is true regardless of the footwear. Question is: does heavier footwear create disproportionately more work, and if so…by how much?
These studies show that extra foot weight does create work, just not as much as was commonly believed. The assumption that a grade will automatically increase the ratio of penalty is a tricky one, though. That ratio appears highly dependent on the speed of walking. Even if a hill makes the base ratio rise, a hill might also cause the speed of walking to decrease, which serves to bring the ratio back down. Countervailing effects.
I would love to see some data on it!
More great work, thank you!
You are very welcome!
LETSGOOOOOOOOOOO THANK YOU FOR THE NEW VIDEO!!!
Thank you for looking at this more closely.
You are very welcome!
Another great one!
that interesting study in the end. on my way to fetch 5kilo pair of boots.
Thank you so much for this video, I think about the weight of my boots because of the that old saying.
I have liked my boots for years because I like to just plant my foot most anywhere and feel confident it will not flex or move under me. I have now moved to 1lb each low boots that have a stiff sole and will now stay with them at least till snow or bad storms come.
Good info. Michael
I'm not sure if energy consumption is a good measure for the comparision of footware weight. It could have an effect on the strain of the muscles so they should measure lactate.
I have an unstable ankle. I'm pretty sure I would face an oxygen uptake penalty wearing light shoes, when I am trying not to cry from the pain when I roll my ankle :)
great video gear skeptic! your videos never disappoint
Thanks! Always appreciated.
This will make no one change their footwear, instead they will tell you why they will continue to use the footwear that they like. Whether it is the "best" footwear or not makes no difference.
Good video anyway
Another thing to consider (which is shown out on the video) it takes four times as much energy to walk twice as fast.
Double the speed and you quadruple the energy required.
This is a physical law, don't argue with it.
Weight works the same, double the weight and quadruple the energy required to move that weight.
I wear steel toes at work. There is a significant difference in fatigue (no science here), with heavier boots, after 12 hours. On the trail tho, my more reasonable weight hiking boots have the stability advantage of less fatigue on ancillary muscles. I'm in my mid 50's, and use sticks because ear damage, so it may just be me.
Yah, the issue of wear and tear on the body with different scenarios is a tough one. Each person is so different and conditioning comes into play.
Thank you. Debated this exact idea with my cousin, who suggested I go for a lighter but much more expensive pair of Salomon boots versus sticking with my Merrells. Now I must share this video with him!
It's not so much the weight for me as how many pairs of spare socks and shoes I can carry in the same space.
I prefer V-Trail 2.0 from Vibram which are heavier than some ultra-minimalist footgear (182g per pair) but feel almost like I am completely barefoot while still having that security that my feet are well armored. I switch up with V-Alpha when the trail is milder as they have less material over the tarsal and a sole with smaller lugs (136g per pair) but if there are a lot of stones in the path you *will* feel them all. I have a couple pair of V-Trail I've been rotating for daily wear for about 3 years now; they're still in pretty good shape.
They dry very fast and are almost indestructible. It's easy to forget I'm wearing them sometimes.
The energy cost related to boot stiffness makes a lot of sense. I ride a motorcycle and boots in that sport can be heavily reinforced for protection, especially racing boots, making them extremely stiff. They work great on a bike cause your range of motion is minimal, but off a bike, they can be hard to walk in and quite tiring, as you're having to expel a lot of energy getting the boot to flex.
Yeah and also changing gears can really work the tibialis anterior muscle. Only in the left leg though
Lighter, more flexible boots can be really sneaker-like. But, even so, I'd agree that the choice for mid-top sneakers is still situational.
You ask about the 5% of body weight boots - but the "bunny boots" we wore in Nome, AK might well have been that! They are incredibly warm and watertight, but have a sole that I swear is made out of oak! Perfect for hiking the tundra - and for just about nothing else. After those, anything I wore on my feet made me feel like i could hike for days!
Somewhere, you can always find the argument that any burden is a positive…in the sense that it can be used for training! 😉
My boots weight 1.3 kg and shoes weight 550g. 1 pound does not equal to to 5 lb, but weight is weight especially from the ultralighter perspective.
I have to wonder if there is also a psychological effect for a lot of hikers, if you're used to light weight sneakers in day to day life then hiking boots seem big, heavy and clunky.
I wear steel caps all day and even heavy hiking boots feel like a breeze in comparison
Conditioning should definitely apply!
Great video.
Suggestion for a future video: pack weight distribution.
Should heavier items be packed higher and close to your back? I've often wondered it's not better to pack heavier items closer to your center of gravity, which is lower on your back, just above your waist.
Interesting idea. I did see something once that used a mechanical body model to illustrate that one type of weight distribution is better for going uphill, and another for down. Kind of pain to have to repack each time, especially on trails that change a lot.
Thank You for another great video😁
You’re welcome!
I went to a shoemaker and asked for new soles on my timberlands, and I asked he halve the thickness of the soles on the upper part (not the thread). I got way more flexibility, lost 50g of dead weight and kept the ankle support and ground traction.
Very interesting!
Good stuff, bringing scientific curiosity to hiking youtube. Love it!
Thanks!
Can you see if having a lighter pack with no hip belt is better than a slightly heavier pack with a hip belt?
Interesting. Never seen any formal studies on hip belts, but I should take a dedicated look.
Excellent thanks a million.......another rub is waterproof vs breathable........if the waterproof does get wet it does not dry out so your carrying the extra weight for days....instead of an hour......?
Yah. Have to be very judicious about when to go Goretex.
while the effects in practice might not be all that big given modern light shoes it still feels intuitively obvious that weight on your feet would be worse than weight carried elsewhere on the body.
not only does it get moved around a lot more but the chain of muscles involved in carrying it is longer.
when you lift one foot the force has to go trough both legs where something resting on your hips would only have to go through one.
Agreed! My own editorializing is meant only to point out that you can get ultralight, ultra flexible mid-tops that are virtually the same weight as some sneakers, so the issue of a weight penalty can become moot.
@philsmith2444 recommended this in the comments of another video and I'm glad he did. This is excellent work and I love the channel. You got a new sub. Keep it up!
Thanks much! I appreciate that.
The state of the research is very limited and everything changes at different levels of fitness, RPE, %VO2max, and with steeper inclines vs steps not to mention the lateral stability and dynamic agility involved with actual hiking, afaik these studies are performed on treadmill (static continuous). We aren't even close to solving this mathematically for the easy to measure things like treadmill. Not very much specific carryover to actual hiking unless similar studies show similar results doing portable metabolic measures.
I knew it must be false! ☺️ Thanks for confirming what I long suspected. It's just stated as fact by so many people whose hiking experience I otherwise respect but I could never buy this particular assertion. It sounded totally implausible. Might another factor be the penalty of walking for hours in wet feet in trail runners vs dry ones in boots? I get it if you're crossing rivers several times an hour, trail runners kind of make sense as they are easier to dry out.. but most if us aren't doing that. When crossing bodies of water less frequently, I have the option to take off my boots and use my lightweight crocs (also my camp shoes) for the crossing and dry my feet before putting them back in DRY boots!
Yah, breathability (especially on hot days, but also if your feet get wet) is a frequent issue brought up with boots. I've never been the splash through puddles kind of guy, preferring to do as you say and save my dry feet.
Stiffer backpacking/mountaineering boots create a platform for your feet, reducing calve muscle use/strain. Compared to trail runners it feels like an invisible staircase on steep stuff, although they are not as comfortable to wear throughout the day. Boots are nice in hilly terrain with 30lbs+ for me since i'm not an avid/trained hiker. A lot of people who are avid hikers/trail runners do gnarly stuff in trail running shoes, so I think it has a lot to do with training/fitness for the job at hand.
The argument for wearing shoes (and light shoes at that) most of the time is that walking in shoes allows all the small support muscles around your joints to adapt and strengthen.
This school of thought says save boots for when you really need them, like traversing fifty-degree, rough, rocky slopes, where you are mainly using the edges of the sole, and unstable ground, where the risk of an ankle sprain is really high; you'll enjoy better joint health long term if you keep the muscles strong.
I don't know what to think personally, although I do wear shoes on trails that I know, for greater comfort.
I’ve hiked in the White Mountains of NH wearing both shoes (not trail runners) and boots, in summer I really haven’t noticed a difference in performance. I do prefer my current hiking boots (Lowa Camino GTX) because they’re more comfortable on my feet than any of the shoes I’ve worn, and because they last longer and are useful in 3.5 seasons (not deep winter.) I snowshoe in my hiking boots often, they’re very substantial and bindings don’t pinch or put pressure on my feet. I wore hiking shoes (Oboz Sawtooth II) with snowshoes ONCE on an 85F day in mid-May when there was still 3-6’ of snow on the trail and it KILLED my feet.
@@philsmith2444 Yeah the precarious weather in the whites warrants boots or gtx shoes for a good chunk of the year i think. Thinking of trying microspikes with my altra olympuses up there this winter on packed down trails if it's not too cold. Good excuse to test out gtx socks too.
Was in the canadian rockies recently for several days of backpacking and decided to wear boots instead of trail runners. My gf wore trail runners, and being both a similar level of fitness, her calves got much more sore than mine. But while her feet and ankles were fine, mine were very sore. The terrain and steepness was quite varied and the lack of switchbacks at times rivaled the trails of the Whites. Not sure how gait/sex accounts for these differences in UX according to the video.
What's interesting to me is this "1 pound on the feet = 5 pounds on the pack" attitude I have never heard of. I'm Dutch and our entire country, hell the entirety of Europe hikes in boots, mainly because we associate it with ankle support, weight is not even a factor we usually seriously consider. Anytime I see someone on trail runners (which again, is quite rare in European mountaons) or even low ankle boots I hope they don't hurt their ankles... now I wonder if this assumption is correct or not hahaha. Very interesting (hiking)cultural difference!
Indeed! Here, it seems, the trend is toward using trail runner shoes for regular hiking.
Dutch hiking scene makes no sense honestly. I dare say more than 75% of hikers I encounter when hiking wear high and heavy boots, but in The Netherlands it's near impossible to find terrain that would actually require such boot. Only reason to wear them is to keep your feet dry in tall, wet grass, but then again we also really dislike hiking in rain and tend to stay inside.
WOW!
YESSSS LET GOOOO!
As someone who spends most of my time doing stats on biological phenomena I endorse this message.
cotton vs wool next
I don’t know about Next, but that’s a good one for the list!
I'm a fan of your intelligence. @@GearSkeptic
Thanks much! I appreciate that.
I think my issue with the studies is it doesn't seem to take into account real world hiking. The pendulum effect doesn't really work when you are climbing (gaining elevation) . For instance somewhere like the Whites, or the Sierra, or Washington, or Colorado. Where you are less striding, and more lifting your feet and placing them above your last step. I think this is where the weight of the footwear would make the most difference. By the pace they said was normal, it is obvious they weren't doing much elevation gain. Love your work, just thought that was something these studies seemed to miss.
treadmill studies.
That'd be the other often-quoted piece of "Army study" lore: every ten degrees of slope increase halves your forward speed. :-)
@@marambula Yes, treadmill studies would have almost no similarity to real world hiking.
@@gregvanpaassen The issue is, is this grade on a rather flat surface, or stepping up on rocks and roots like in real life hiking? Even a steep slope on a flat surface you can swing your leg, vs a steep slope where you are bending your knees and lifting your feet. Different mechanical motion. On a trail such as the PCT you may get more of the pendulum effect a lot of the time, vs the AT where you are lifting your legs to climb, and even lifting them to go down.
You elevate skepticism to an art form. Nice.
I find lightweight boots (UnderArmour Valsetz Tactical) more comfortable and cooler than trail shoes with gaiters.
They weigh a few ounces more, but I don't notice the weight difference. _Shrug_
Not sure what else to say about that.
For me, waterproofness is more an issue than a mid-top (in terms of breathability and comfort in the heat). I do fine in lightweight mid-tops on a hot day, but Goretex will bake my feet like muffins.
@@GearSkeptic I have not had that issue (although I wonder why people wear mid-highs?). I wear Merrell Tacticals in wet weather (because Merrell doesn't make any full-height hiking boots in wide sizes -- go figure). The Merrells are WPB, but not GoreTex. They breath noticeably when I wiggle my toes. The Merrells are not quite as cool as the non-waterproof UnderArmours, but they are not bad.
Funny thing, though: My first pair of Merrell Tacticals were nice and waterproof. My second pair is not so much. I mean, they might resist water a LITTLE, but I get wet with either the UAs or the new Merrells. So I might as well wear the UAs. It's puzzling.
so from this testing what is the most optimal footwear? If the most important features of footwear are weight, flexibility and stability then I would think that some kind of barefoot shoe with ankle support would be the best. Does that make sense? I had to get off trail after 479 miles on the AT due to posterior tibialis tendonopathy when it had reduced my range to about 10-12 miles per day and I was hiking in altra lone peak 6s. They have the low weight and flexibility but nothing in the form of ankle support. It seems to me that support is necessary depending on total weight but is probably scalable to basically no support needed if you are a lightweight hiker with a light or ultralight pack. Conversely if you don't train your feet consistently I think you'll have a hard time carrying a relatively more heavy pack with no ankle and foot support. The optimal footwear is probably in the middle somewhere with a sliding scale based on total body weight + pack weight.
I see it as situational. The no-ankle-support stuff works best for ultralight trips with extremely light packs, in decent weather. Heavy packs might require more support. Cold weather might require more insulation. In traveling over scree, I really appreciate ankle protection from impact and abrasion.
@@GearSkeptic My favorite aspect of your content is that it allows nuance. On my AT thru hike attempt I used your recovery drink mix and tried to incorporate most of the fundamentals from your nutrition series. Always had great conversations with other hikers and always was able to grasp the nuances between different people's needs based on the stuff you outline in your videos. Love that there's not just one answer for everyone because every hiker has different circumstances and requirements. I boil water twice a day (morning coffee and evening meal) so carrying a bit more for a stove system that is more efficient at boiling water really helps my resupply weight but some other hikers only cook at shelters or in their tent at night so they don't need as much wind resistance or efficiency. In a world where everyone is trying to nail down the correct answer where there isn't one you are doing a great job at exploring the range of potentially correct answers depending on individual circumstances.
Thanks for making this. I think it would be interested to compare the difference between thick soles trail runners vs thin sold running shoes. Just to get your take on the whole bear foot vs thick soles idea.
Not just the thickness, but the flexibility as well. Hiking in shoes with rock plates vs a fully flexible sole
Results tells us what happens with energy when measuring on a treadmill. Maybe its not speed but amplitude that cause increased energy demand? Like sn uneven hiking trail?
I would rate this as 100% true.
One thing to add is familiarity with heavy boots. I daily wear extra high, 14", stiff hunting boots that weighs over 3lbs each. My walking speed and energy is unaffected. I can still walk 4 mph with a heavy pack. I've always been a fast walker.
But RUNNING, is a whole different story. Not only is there so much more energy spent trying to run in these, backpack on or off, but my run speed is cut by 70%. I'm slow at running in them. This is because they are so stiff and high you cannot push off with either your ankles or toes. All that mechanical advantage is lost. I'm still a fast runner, but not in my daily footwear.
I've taken VO2 tests with both light and my daily wear, and it is the same while walking, and part of that is because I'm very used to wearing very heavy boots.
An excellent presentation as always. Most of what you conclude tallies well with my own experience. However, there was a figure in that complete walker table that didn't. The doubling in energy use between 2mph and 3mph sounded reasonable, but only a 11% increase between 3 and 4mph doesn't sound close for me. Even between 3mph (my wife's comfortable pace) and 3.6mph (my comfortable pace), represents a quite noticeable step up in energy burned. About a layer in clothing in the cooler months. 4mph, with my little legs, is a bit of a challenge. Obviously we all differ, but I would be surprised if the difference between 3mph and 4mph was less than 100% for me. Very much looking forward to the next edition.
Good point. I’d like to see a full study on that. Thanks!
@gearskeptic6355 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9081357/ An interesting paper. Not easy to equate the age of the participants and experemental design to my own exercise profile, but it does suggest the Complete Walker values for walking speed vs. energy consumption could be wide of the mark.
could it be that the lifting of the feet - especially in steep terrain - is the more decisive factor? this is not taken into account on the treadmill. I at least feel that steep stages with heavy shoes seem more strenuous?!
I’m not sure. The study of walking in the snow would seem to be more of a lifting than swinging gait, and they found no difference from boot weight.
I'm just wondering....VO2, which is a measurement/scale of a cardiorespiratory fitness, but as far as i can see has no relation to the actual amount of Energy, regardless the means of a body to supply that. certainly when used in combination with Velocity which is just relative at best.
Why not calculate the energy in Joules needed for the acceleration, which is absolute, needed with a certain mass over a fixed period of time. Or time needed as a result. Would that not give a far more accurate result of energy needed/used. Where ever or whoever it comes from and than relate it to the consequences for a body?
in the first study, p being exactly .05 in every but the 4km/h case is very suspicious.
lmao. Yes it is.
I think it is just reported as a limit, like a threshold. In other words, “the level of 0.05 was met”.
I personally notice a big difference in my 'soreness' when walking with boots over trainers. I will take trainers over boots unless there's rough terrain. My recommendation would be if you don't need to wear boots, don't.
I knew it I knew it I knew it... OK, actually, I didn't know it until now, but I really strongly suspected it.
;)
It's not at all clear to me that we should be able to extrapolate these findings to hiking on varied terrain. Walking up steep gradients (no to mention lifting your feet over rocks, roots etc) at 4 km/h is definitely different than walking down the street at 4 km/h. Walking my dog in winter boots feels fine, and switching to a light shoe would maybe gain me nothing in that context. But put me on a set of stairs, and it's totally different. Backpacking is often closer to stair stepping than to walking.
Icarus says hi.
Next Pot I would love for you to Stir; carrying Water Bottles on Shoulder Straps!
I will go to my grave thinking that carrying 4 and 1/2 pounds (2, 1 liter bottles) up high and away from the bodies center of gravity, IS A BAD IDEA.
All the while, pulling your upper body forward just doesn’t make any sense to me.
I've never hiked with a water bottle on a shoulder strap. I have heard people talk about the forward weight being used to offset the backward weight of a pack, but it probably appeals more because it makes the bottle easy to grab.
Whenever I watch one of your videos, I want to show it to every hiker friend I have! :D Thank you for giving us so much quality content!
Thanks! I do appreciate that.
I'm excited about this series!
One thing that seems to be significant is /why/ is there a dramatic jump going from 7.3 kph → 8.9 kph (i.e. crossing the 5mph threshold). I suspect this is the fast walking → running transition.
The pendular motion of walking changes dramatically, once we start running. When walking, we're swinging our foot forwards but when running, we're driving the knee up, lifting the foot significantly higher, further and faster than pendular motion would. This is significant for some types of hiking too, particularly where I hike in the White Mountains. The Army tests on treadmills and paved/unpaved roads are essentially flat topography. If you're needing to constantly lift your foot to clear small boulders and rough terrain, you're not in the pendular motion regime. I suspect similar is true once the angle of incline increases enough (even if the terrain were flat) in a way that is not accounted for by Naismith's rule (and Aitken's adjustment) which only accounts for speed but not step size / efficiency.
Anecdotally, I've found that switching from leather hiking boots to trail runners is very significant. A significant part of that, perceptually at least, seems to be from the reduction of weight, particularly as the legs fatigue, this becomes dramatic. There is a factor of my trail runners having other characteristics that you note (more flexible as well as wide toe box, zero drop, etc.) which incline to better biomechanics and therefore also aid in efficiency.
I also thought about the climbing action that is common in hiking where you are lifting your foot at the knee vs swinging from the hip and wondered how that would effect energy used/weight of footwear.
How about a video on the belief that if you sleep in less cloths in a sleeping bag you will stay warmer. I have always heard this but never found proof.
My experience was consistent with the research. I found water resistant boots with ankle support were FAR superior to athletic shoes. I hike in the northeast where rocky terrain, water crossings, & steep slopes are the only types of trails we have.
I found the exact opposite and I only hike in upstate NY
thank you. I followed the advice on TH-cam about ultralight backpacking and bought "low shoes", then I had rocks on my foot... then bought trail gaiters, and now I have to repair them... so I will be soon back where I started with "high shoes"... It's like ultralight youtuber only care more about pack weight over what is actually working
That’s what happens when someone picks an arbitrary number for pack base weight and manages to convince enough people they’re not cool if theirs is heavier. And unless you’re hiking without consumables, base weight is a meaningless metric anyway. Your body doesn’t care how much your pack weighs with no food, fuel, and water in it while carrying a pack with food, fuel, and water in it.
Yay! I'm not Crazy! I'm wearing boots on my AT hike and no one can stop me. (I'm actually already wearing boots daily and my feet feel better for it.)
I own 2 pairs of boots, that's all. I've worn boots every day for the last 30 years, the weight does not seem to be a factor.
I wonder if the results would be the same when tested on a stair-master.
Interesting. They might be different 🤔
Wonderful analysis! I was getting lost until you whipped out the chart!
Suggestions for other topics in this series:
- Chugging too much water at once is dangerous.
- “Camel Up” by drinking a liter of water at once.
- Cotton Kills
- If you stop for more than 5 minutes, you should wait 25 before you resume hiking.
Actually, camel-up and chugging water is covered in my Performance Nutrition for Backpackers series, in the episode on Hydration Strategies!
@@GearSkeptic Brilliant. Thanks!
One topic which always interested me is condensation on double or single walled tents. I got the lanshan 2 and the lanshan 2 pro and to me it seems the condensation is the same and with the regular lanshan just behind the inner wall
Ryan on Backpacking Light did an in-depth video on tent condensation.
Agreed, the Backpacking Light analysis is very thorough.
Whenever GS uploads, I click.
It seems like the studies you’re quoting don’t include hikers with a backpack. It seems like the treadmill studies have people running and walking but not caring 20 or 30 or 40 pounds on their back. And it didn’t seem to indicate whether the treadmill’s we’re going uphill and downhill or if they were just a flat treadmill.
The army study didn't use pack weight. The second tested people in 3 conditions: barefoot, with boots, and with a waistpack. And, of the last 3 studies I mentioned quickly at the end, the 2nd one used a packweight that was 35% of the subject's body weight.
But, to my knowledge, none of them tested a given subject under different pack loads to see the difference.
Wow wow wow.
Glad I stumbled upon your channel last night.
Like a breath of fresh air (almost).
Video suggestion, although I don't know how you would integrate meaningful stats into the mix: pack loading and their dynamics.
Keep up the awesome work, going to work my way through the backlog of videos this week 😊
I so appreciate the quality of thought and facts you put into your video. And please continue to keep the excellent ratio of fact to humor as well.
🥸
Thanks for this video! I've always been one of those "a pound on the feet" zealots, even though chronic foot issues that I've suffered all of my life have been made worse by wearing lightweight footwear and now have to wear heavier, more supportive hiking boots.
Incidentally, it seems like the heavier boots tend to last considerably longer than shoes like trail runners, so there's another benefit.
Ah, durability! Good point.
Alright we've seen his hands, and we've seen his feet. We're almost there, folks.
Ha! You'll have to wait until the video on hats!
Very interesting! I am a boot hiker, always have been, but was wondering about switching to trainers for lightness. Good to know that, at my speeds, with the flexibility of my boots, I wouldn't be gaining anything.
I love my high and mid boots. They've carried me far.