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.
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.
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
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
It’s always been a weird argument/perspective because (assuming properly fitting and broken in footwear) the limiting factor is just how many miles you can travel under so much weight before your feet hurt too much. No matter how fit and energetic I am, if my feet hurt beyond a point, I can’t go any farther. I personally find that if I only have to go 5 miles, even with a heavy pack, I can wear the most minimal Vibram FiveFingers type shoes before the trauma on my feet slows me down. In contrast, if I need to go 10+ miles/day for a string of days, I need heavy boots to protect my feet. I already know I’m expending probably an order of magnitude more calories due to the scale of the effort. Frankly, a lot of ultralight thru hikers look thin and weak. So if they can get it done in running shoes and a 10lbs total pack weight, more power to them. My packs tend to be a bit heavier, and I tend to be a bit heavier. But I get it done, and I pretty much need real ass boots to do it in.
In case my perspective wasn’t clear, thank you for essentially teasing out the ridiculousness of the conventional wisdom in this case. You need the right footwear for the objective. Maybe something interesting in the vein of this channel would be to quantify footwear supportiveness and overall weight. Maybe there is an outlier of amazing modern materials and design.
I agree with all of your points and i think that the original (or maybe not original but the oft quoted) study for 5lbs on the back worth 1 lbs on the foot is probably overly biased towards military men who tend to weigh more than the average ultralight hiker and have a pack weight more closely approximating the total body mass of the average ultralighter than it would their packs
Yah, shoes are VERY particular to your own feet. There are also lots of other variables I deliberately stayed away from in this specific video: pack weight (as you mentioned), rain/waterproofness , heat/breathability, all the issues of stability and support.
And add to that the complexities that one's own physiology brings, and it's a difficult formula to solve. For example, support or lack thereof for flat feet (like me) has a massive influence on walking comfort, and apparently also some influence on energy expenditure. See study from Energy cost of walking with flat feet by Otman, Basgöze & Gökce-Kutsal@@GearSkeptic Thank you for your videos as always, much appreciated!
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
Thank you Gear Skeptic for myth busting, good to have a thinking man in our corner. I have worn leather boots for 50 years because that''s what the terrain dictates. Recently I had a chance to wear shoes on a 400 km, partly tracked, route. It made no difference to how I felt but the tread is nearly gone and there are holes in the upper fabric from the hard, spiky, spinifex grass. The difference is that leather gets heavy with water and takes long to dry out but protects and lasts so much longer. Keep those hands of truth waving!
A nice heavy coat of beeswax will put an end to wet leather. I use it on my uninsulated leather hiking boots that I snowshoe in down to about 15F/-10C; it keeps snow from melting on them, soaking into the leather, and freezing, making my feet colder.
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!
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.
@@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.
Thank you for your content- it is intellectually *impeccable* and invaluable to those of us who think similarly but don't have a weekend to devote to empirical trials and interlibrary loan requests. Footwear has always been a bugaboo- you know when it doesn't work, and develop prophetic myths around it when it does. Two years ago I bought a popular, high-end, relatively light-weight pair of "traditional" mixed suede and synthetic high-top boots. I LOVED THEM. They were then stolen out of my car. I bought the exact same pair of boots nine months later and, after 30 plus miles they absolutely destroy my feet (my ankles, in particular- blisters the size of silver dollars). Well, so much for the formula. I like the idea of ankle support, but- at the end of the day- I have to advocate for whatever makes yourself most comfortable.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Loved the science. Preference for hiking shoe or boot should be based the fit and comfort, endurance for the trail hiked (eg asphalt vs dirt vs rock, and conditions such as mud, rain, snow or heat.
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!
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.
Great stuff! I really would like to see a study added to this focusing on walking / running with elevation gain. I would think lifting your feet like going up stairs is different than swinging them while walking on a flat ground.
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.
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".
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!
One other, and less confusing explanation of the 0.5 alpha significance level, is that such a difference can occur by accident around one time in twenty trials. One in twenty is far less impressive than 95%. Most people have twenty digits. Also, I spent much of my career walking often from eight to ten miles a day, doing archaeological survey. My holy grail was a light boot that did not scoop up grass seeds (foxtails and such), and was high enough to provide stability on very irregular footing. A sprained ankle in the middle of no where in particular could be a very serious problem for more than just the person with the sprain. At the same time, toward the end of the day what ever we had on our feet felt just as heavy.
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 :)
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
This is a comment more about the fact-checker theme of the title rather than shoe weight. Reminds me of the wildly-popular Mythbusters TV series. Specifically, I have several hiker friends who swear to the efficacy of Epson Salts as a therapy for post-hike soreness. Would you be inclined to look into this?
I never heard that saying the one I have heard is one pound on your body puts four pounds on your knees. I don’t really know if that’s true or just a saying. Take care
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......?
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.
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!
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.
@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!
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.
@@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.
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.
@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 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?
The adage “one pound’s weight on the feet was equivalent to five pounds on the shoulders” comes from Charles Wylie, organizing secretary to the British Everest expedition of 1953. Colin Flethcer picked up on this and re-stated it in The New Complete Walker in 1974. Anecdotally, as a backpacker since 1975, I still think it's mostly correct. I noticed a real "end of day" energy gain when I switched from relatively light boots (Salomon's) to low hikers some ten years ago. Hiking with elevation gains is different than walking on a treadmill, just as exercising on a stair step machine is more tiring than a treadmill. Elevation gain matters in this discussion...
Correction: you do not “notice” a “real energy gain”. What you experience (without instruments or measurements) is a subjective perception of relative fatigue. Studies have shown that perceptions of fatigue do not necessarily correspond to actual energy usage. Take trekking poles, for instance. It has been demonstrated scientifically that the use of poles can help hikers go farther in a day. And yet, it has also been shown that using poles increases total energy expenditure. This happens because poles help spread the work load over more different muscle groups. This reduces fatigue on some muscles, but increases it on others. If leg-specific fatigue is what causes you to stop for the day, poles can help you go farther by preventing that critical breaking point for longer, but they actually do this by spending more energy over all. The point is just that perceptions of “energy use” aren’t reliable, and fatigue can be triggered more by subjective factors like pain than actual work accomplished. I certainly agree that an incline could matter. Bear in mind, however, that the shoe weight penalty appears to be significantly speed-dependent. What happens when you walk up hill? Most people tend to slow down. So, even if we assume that an incline increases the penalty (by some unknown amount), the drop in speed will act as a countervailing effect to help reduce it again. The burden for you, then, is to establish what the resulting ratio is…and provide your proof.
@@GearSkepticI did say "anecdotally." :) As to going uphill, that's an enormous amount of what we do as a backpackers - certainly it's the case in the Rockies where I live or Appalachians where trails are seldom switch-backed. Lifting weight (your feet and boots), higher and in a less "walking stride" and a more "climbing manner" on a steep trail really does make a difference, no matter if it's slower - if you really want to stress/tension a muscle in the gym, you lift and lower weight more slowly, not quickly. I'd agree that "1 pound on the feet is the same as 5 on the back" is more than likely overstated. However, I just don't think there's enough real world data to be too dogmatic. As you know, all "problems" like this one tend to be "wholistic" (ie, there's more than just one or two factors that enter in to it). I'm just not sure the data presented really are applicable to real-world backpacking. Regardless, I do enjoy your channel and always look forward to your offerings!
Definitely don’t be dogmatic! :) I do wish for a study that looked at the differences with going up hill. I imagine there are differences between smooth incline ascents versus stair step ascents. And, what about downhill? For any hike that ends where you started, every single step up must be followed by a step down. If lifting your feet out of a gravity well is extra work, then allowing gravity to pull them down later provides a discount. When noting the extra effort of going uphill, it is important to try and distinguish between work spent raising the entire body (and your pack) versus just lifting your feet. On flat ground, once you reach a semi-constant walking speed, momentum keeps your body going and you largely just need to put in the effort to overcome friction and resistance. The constant pendulum swinging of your feet draws a significant portion of total effort, so shoes matter more. Up steps, you are lifting every part of yourself and what you carry, every time. Body and pack raising effort will become a much bigger portion of total effort over foot raising. Ahhhh…I could theorize myself in circles for hours. It’s a kind of fun, I suppose 🤓. But ultimately, need data to solve.
