Re: Three things you should never skimp on

On 19 Nov 2003 15:06:25 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy)
wrote:

>Well, since we still seem to be having a civil discussion of this
>arcane (to most people) issue, I will respond to your responses ;-)

Gee, everyone's always civil here, aren't they? <bfg> Yes the subject
is esoteric, and wildly off-topic in consumers/frugal-living groups,
but here we are. In a different forum we might have a nice chat about
gear and mountaineering practices, but here I feel compelled to tailor
my responses to the current listening audience. Of course, they
probably think that we're both crazy. Oh well....
  
>I did the JMT about 4 years ago in Big Five bargain table running
>shoes with holes cut in them where they rubbed.  

Holes cut in them? <snicker> If those were your only footwear, how did
they do in snow? Feet get kinda cold? Slippery on those snow slopes,
too, I'll bet. And when soaked, or in deep muck, it must have been fun
to occasionally see that you were walking on the *sides* of the shoes,
eh?  That's really good for the feet. And stumbling through scree and
talus fields, especially with the razor-edged flakes one finds in the
Sierra Nevada, with holes in your shoes? Sounds like great fun!

>My pack was about 35
>lbs the first day, down to about 13 or so when I got to resupply
>points.  There were lots of other people doing the JMT in running
>shoes and light packs.  

Sure, but I'll bet most were not doing the entire length equipped with
only one pair of running shoes. And if they were, they were gambling
big time. (I carry light boots in my pack when it isn't necessary to
wear them, and walk in my old running/wading shoes. It's fun to tell
others on the trail that I'm doing the whole JMT in just those.  :-) 

Granted, ultralight hiking has become very trendy (if you can afford
the outrageously unfrugal gear), and the JMT is a reasonable trail to
do that on. But you must be fast, immune to pain, willing to suffer
cold and discomfort, physical danger, and time your trip very well.

I've through  probably 40 or so pairs of running shoes, and I wouldn't
have trusted any of them to hold up as my only footwear on the entire
JMT. Those soles are glued on, and tend to come off in rough terrain
(and have). No backups? Too bad. Barefoot backpacking isn't much fun.

>None of us ended up in the hospital.

Ask the Rangers how many people fail in their attempts at a JMT
through-hike. Ask how many need to be assisted, or carried, out. And
I'm curious about what special insight you have regarding injuries and
evacuations from the Sierra Nevada mountains. I grew up there, spent
much of my life there, and served on search and rescue teams for many
years. The main reason for rescues: Hikers not properly prepared.

>I lead hikes for the Sierra Club, where I deal with a real mix of
>novices and expert hikers.  

Leading hikes for them is not quite the same as being a mountaineering
instructor and outings leader for many years, which is what  I did.
The biggest  difference is that you probably stuck to maintained
trails in summer conditions. The groups I led summited all of the 54
Colorado 14ers, in all seasons, plus the other 14ers including Shasta
and Rainier. I can assure you that no one I guided ever showed up only
in running shoes. Ditto for  every other mountain in the world outside
the U.S. I've ever been on (and that's quite a few).

>In my experience, the exclusive source of
>foot problems on these hikes is novice hikers with fancy (Vasque, etc)
>hiking boots.  I have met very few, if any, hard-core long distance
>hikers who wear regular hiking boots. 

You probably haven't spent much time on the overall PCT. The summer
weather in the California section is benign, compared to other times
Oregon and Washington. How do you dry soaked running shoes when it
rains constantly? Wet shoes will usually guarantee blisters, and if
you add a little dirt or sand through those holes, it gets real ugly. 

> Most wear running shoes.  I
>have never seen someone wearing running shoes have a foot problem.  I
>have seen people with boots with massive blisters, even some bloody
>feet on occasion.  

Sorry, Andy, but  you have a seriously skewed sample. As a serious
runner for many decades, I rarely find kindred spirits who have never
had a foot problem, sooner or later, with running shoes. Of course
cheap, poorly fitted boots will obviously produce blisters. OTOH, I've
walked thousands of miles in well-fitted, broken in boots, and not had
a problem with blisters. With dry feet, double socks, common sense,
(and Moleskin) there is never an excuse for getting serious blisters.

>Novice hikers don't have the experience and
>patience to size boots properly and then break them in.  The teenage
>clerks at the outdoors stores don't help the situation.  For these
>reasons I would *especially* recommend running shoes for novice
>hikers.

I worked at REI testing a selling gear for a few years. For casual
hiking, sure, I've ocassionally suggested starting with trail shoes
(running shoes with a more agressive sole) on well-groomed trail,
without a big pack. Especially if they seem strong and fit.

But to send a novice out onto the 212-mile length of the John Muir
Trail with a full pack wearing  just sneakers would be pretty
irresponsible, IMO. With veteran hikers, that may work; but each
person has to judge that for him/hersef, and know how to survive in
the wilderness in the event of weather problems or injury.
>
>I never had any trouble with the rivers and snowfields on the JMT. 

Then it's hard to believe you've backpacked the trail in anything
other than perfect summer conditions. For most of the year, to attempt
a crossing of Glen or Forester Pass in anything other that serious
boots (not to mention an ice axe and rope) would be almost suicidal. 

>That's another advantage of running shoes: they dry out quick if you
>get them wet.  I actually prefer them for hiking in the snow, as long
>as I have some gaiters and its not too cold out. 

You must have some strange physiology if you can walk in snow in wet
sneakers with wet feet for an extended period in the mountains. I've
carried out a lot of people with frostbitten toes doing such things.
(And just as many with broken ankles after slipping on a loose rock.)

>A friend of mine
>climbed Wheeler Peak (the highest peak in New Mexico) in running shoes
>through snowpack the entire way.  

That's a relatively short dayhike.  And the lodge at the base awaits.

>Another friend of mine climbed Mt.
>Whitney in Teva sandels.

The Whitney Trail is a highway, for god's sake. Other than the
elevation gain, it's a piece of pie. I've dayhiked it dozens of times,
but lately have stuck to the East Face or the Mountaineer's Route via
Upper Boy Scout and Iceberg Lakes. (Fewer people that way.)

>Well, maybe it is true that it is impossible to twist your ankle in
>heavy mountaineering boots, but is it worth the added weight?  

Obviously I wouldn't wear them if it wasn't. You don't see people
climbing serious mountains in sneakers, my friend. Plastic boots,
crampons, ice axes and ropes are absolutely required on every big
mountain I've ever climbed anywhere on Earth. No sneakers, except
maybe to relax in while warming up in front of a refugio fireplace.

>I own a
>pair of expensive Vasque boots (the Sundowner or something like that?)
>that it was perfectly possible to twist your ankle in.  Every normal
>boot I have ever seen your ankle will twist if you come down on your
>foot wrong.

That's funny, I own a couple pairs of inexpensive Vasque Sundowners
(~$100), and have used those for about 20 years (six pairs or so).
Those are NOT heavy mountaineering boots, and are built like running
shoes (light, glued sole) but offer instant comfort with no-breakin
(if fitted properly). And they just happen to fit my feet perfectly.
The GTX model will keep your feet dry, offer fair support and are warm
in cold, high mountain conditions. I love mine.

>I have had my ankle turn many times in running shoes or sandals 
>since I abandoned hiking boots, but I have never suffered an injury from it
>(i.e. felt it the next day)... 

... yet, Andy, yet. But keep trying.

>My total mileage in running shoes and sandals has been probably at
>least 6 times my mileage in boots, 

Well, mine too. But I usually use running shoes primarily for running,
and boots for backcountry backpacking and mountaineering. But one
covers more mileage when running, rather than hiking, right?

>and I was much younger when I wore boots, so I am pretty sure 
>my experience is not a matter of luck or youth. 

I'd bet otherwise, but time will tell. When your feet start giving you
problems later in life due to too much abuse now, you'll think back
about the old guy on usenet who tried to help you. Mark my words.

>I can't prove how or why, but my own experience has convinced
>me that ankle support is not necessary or desireable in avoiding ankle
>injury.

In your case it may not be, at least in the short term. But I'd be
very reluctant to offer that same formula to people of all ages and in
various physical conditions to do the same (as in a group like this). 

Back in the old days (before plastic boots) I used to sled many people
with broken ankles off the slopes at Aspen, when I lived there and
worked Ski Patrol. But when plastic boots came along, presto, no more
ankle breaks. (Instead there were a lot of nasty spiral leg fractures
just above the top of the ski boot top.) The point being: ankle
support prevents ankle injuries. You are rolling the dice by ignoring
this fact. 

But it's your call.


Caveat

(Apologies to the group for the long, OT, post. Forgive me <sob>.)