5 ms·
Tbh, hiking boots are really necessary for long hikes with differing weather elements. I can't imagine any of the sneakers listed in the article are water resis
by relyks 3y ago
Tbh, hiking boots are really necessary for long hikes with differing weather elements. I can't imagine any of the sneakers listed in the article are water resistant enough to handle deep puddles of mud or bouts of ice and snow. The boots also help with traction and pressure differentials.
- david38 3y agoI hiked in Colombia and never had waterproof shoes. Let them soak. No problem. They can actually dry.
- lusus_naturae 3y agoYou're absolutely right, I think this article is using the colloquial term for "hiking", i.e., a 1-hour walk back and forth without terrain or elevation changes. Everyone can enjoy whatever they want, but I think a new term is needed without it being confusing.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agoI mean, that's going for a walk.
- fasthands9 3y agoI hiked the grand canyon rim to bottom in sneakers. A trail runner would probably be better, but for hikes like this (that are clearly more than 'walks for 99% of people') hiking boots are a bad idea. A large fraction of hikes are not going through the bushes or through mud. Its on a difficult path, but a path nonetheless where the important factors are simply you dont get tired and you know how the shoes move.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agoWell, we're not really discussing that here. Hiking to the bottom of the grand canyon is NOT "a 1-hour walk back and forth without terrain or elevation changes." I don't think it's just a matter of bush or mud. When I've worn hiking boots it's because of the gear I was carrying on my back - the extra cushion and ankle support is important when you're on hour 8 of having an extra 40 lbs on your back.
- fasthands9 3y agoI was obviously exhausted but the path is very well maintained. Its not like you have to do any climbing or walk through brush. I think the shoes you would wear for a 6 hour walk in a city are what are also good for this type of hike.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agoI'm not saying your shoes were inadequate for your hike, I'm saying when hiking boots come in handy,when you're doing an actual multi day hike.
- relyks 3y agoI agree with you. I hiked the Hoh Rainforest in Olympic National Park for literally miles and I would not have been able to do it with sneakers.
- jmye 3y agoYou don’t want water resistance, you want fast drainage. With decent socks, you’ll do way better. If you get water in your water resistant boots, you’ll have wet feet the rest of the way. If you’re on ice, regular hiking boots aren’t going to be any better than anything else, and you can slap yaktrax on sneakers, too. If you need crampons, you’re out of hiking boot territory already anyway.
- livueta 3y agoThis is why you take two pairs of light, quick-drying, easily drained shoes.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- fasthands9 3y agoI routinely hike 7-10 miles and always prefer sneakers. This is in California where there's not a true mud season and there are paths you can hike on. For conditions like those and I would absolutely recommend something light like sneakers. I think people over estimate the ruggedness of the activity because it makes it seem more intense. I realize a 10 mile hike is shorter than what a through-hiker would do, but ultimately you are walking on a path doing a similar motion that you would do walking on a hilly dirt road.
- relyks 3y agoYeah, that's why I mentioned "differing weather elements." If there's no issue with wetness or cold, I don't think it's an issue for sneakers.
- Fricken 3y agoIf it's muddy and wet, my feet are gonna get slimy and gross no matter what. If I'm wearing overbuilt footwear, my feet will remain slimy and gross long after it's no longer wet and muddy.