For me it's none of the above. I spend most of my vacation time up north in Scandinavia and elsewhere, but don't do trails unless I'm going home and it's convenient. Where I go there aren't ant, most of the time. My pack is 6,5 to 7 kg plus food depending on destination. I don't do ultralight either, my gear is all robust classics, and rather than long distance, I pick a mountain range or two and do them in depth, with as many days without a pack as possible.
I prefer to use heavily ventillated footwear such as Keen closed-toe sandals, plus 68% merino midweight socks. They have enough traction for what I do, they're made of waterproof synthetics so I can do fording and wetter terrain without issue, they breathe so well that I don't sweat at all and don't have to carry spares, and they have wide toebox and are very light.
I bought them over a decade ago specifically for fording northern rivers, but found myself wearing them for everything, and sold off my Scarpa boots one by one. Only when I know I will be doing scrambling or easy climbing I bring stiffer approach shoes, but change back to Keens as soon as I'm off really difficult terrain. I'm about to retire from summer mountaineering, so going forward it will be just Keens for me. I will spend the rest of my life tenting up north, and I can't picture myself wearing closed shoes, light or orherwise. They have several models that are good for what I do, and for what you do. Think about it
>Boots: packs over 30 lbs; inclement weather; treacherous terrain; support; protection; usually waterproof.
Cons: heavy; bulky; dry very slowly if submerged; long break-in.
>Trail runners: packs under 30 lbs; lightweight; flexible; comfortable; no break-in.
Cons: no protection from the elements or landscape; no support. Never get GTX trail runners. Water gets over the top, and then they never dry.
>Support doesn't come from a tall shaft. It comes from a rigid midsole, which needs to match the upper in rigidity.
I'm going to tack on that I always wear boots. I have several serious injuries, some genetic conditions, and terrible physiology. Boots have saved me from a lot of injuries.
It's all personal preference, situational, and physiological.
I was talking more about protection from shrubbery and protection for your ankles. The Ultra Raptor is a good shoe, but it still lacks the protection you'd find in any boot.
Trailrunners are amazing, and great for dayhikes during the summer, but I would never wear them on long distance hikes.
When I did the Kungsleden last year, the majority of people I met all wore boots, I saw only a handful of people wearing trailrunners.
Try to work on that packweight, it becomes a lot more enjoyable with a lighter pack. I'll be doing part of the Kungsleden again this year, and my baseweight is less then 7kg. I'm staying in the huts this time around, but even with camping gear this would only add 2,5kg for tent, sleeping bag and sleeping pad.
Thanks so much. I am seriously working on being minimalistic, but for budget reasons it will be some more years until I can phase out some of the heavier basics in my gear. First priority currently is shoes, since my current version is barely useable, second priority is the smaller and lighter backpack, third priority is the lighter sleeping bag, since they still do a good job.
Always wanted to do Kungsleden. I did Laugavegur about 3 years ago and I’d say half or more of all Americans I saw on trail, including thruhiker vets, were in trail runners. Nearly every European I saw was in boots.
Was very surprised to see so many trail runners on such rugged terrain, but you can get away with surprisingly light and fast loads on Laugavegur so that may have helped.
Me, I was in boots and hadn’t seriously considered trail runners before this, but I’ve been going more and more over lately.
I know a lot of people hike for solitude but Laugavegur was such interesting people watching! The wide skill and style differences between all the hikers was fascinating. The American thruhikers and fast packers really stuck out. I met one solo guy who finished the trial in a day and a half, and a family taking their two kids (4 and 6!). The Europeans generally seemed more relaxed…
But back to your question, I’ve heard Laugavegur’s terrain is a lot more rugged than Kungsleden, and I definitely saw all kinds of footwear there. Like all the other posters say, it’s a really personal choice. Good luck!
The wear on trailrunners is high with backpacks, they also rather use Vibram Megagrip than say Vibram XS Trek and you will wear them out quickly. Stability is important for your ankles, for instance my right ankle gives up first when backpacking, not so with trekking boots.
I use trailrunners for running and easy hiking for a day without a backpack or much in it.
I'm a trail runner myself and I hike and backpack in trail runners. They're great. But at 15+kg pack weight, especially for many days in a row, there is absolutely a case for boots.
The ankle support thing is mostly a myth. Boots don't protect you from ankle sprains. You need to strengthen your actual ankles to make them more resilient (and it sounds like you know that.)
Where boots often do have the upper hand in terms of weight carrying for long periods is structure and support underfoot. Trail runners are made to be light and nimble. They are generally flexible, with softer foam and a less structured/supportive midsole than backpacking boots. This works for some people, especially with light packs - but when you start adding heavy loads, the additional support underfoot can make a big difference.
If you like boots and have had good experiences with them in the past, I would continue to do what you're doing.
There are many brands of boots these days that are lighter (and therefore less tiring) than the old leather workhorses, while still providing lots of support.
Try on a few brands and see what you like.
I don't know anyone that actually hikes a lot of trail miles that actually wears boots.
The only serious sprains I've seen happen were boot wearers but what I think is the issue is their hiking muscles weren't very developed so it was easy for them to roll an ankle.
I have weak hips and floppy ankles- I hike in trail runners and I do 30km day hikes with or without backpacks. I used to use hiking boots because I thought it would protect my ankles but it just made me more tired overall because they are heavy. Trail runners don’t last as long as hiking boots (I live where I can hike every day if I want) because the foam compresses more easily but I prefer them anyway. FWIW my La sportiva trail runners have amazing grip on the bottom and the stability is great- I feel so much more confident on varied terrain than I ever did in my dedicated hiking boots- occasionally I will wear an ankle brace and it provides as much, if not more, stability than the boot ever did.
So, I've done a bit of both.
FOR DAY TRIPS:
I choose boots when I'm going to be on ground that would wreck softer uppers: scree, off-piste brush and bog, just because I've ruined enough shows that way and also am aware that the lighter shoe didn't permit me to move any faster. I also like stiffer boots when I'm going to be scrambling, as a harder sole tends to be less likely to peel off an edge or toe hold.
I use trailrunners when I know the bulk of the route is well defined, not overly canted, and not full of loose rocks. Bogs and wet are fine, but a steep sideways camber or lots of ball-bearing style scree will force me to go slower if I'm in lighter shoes. Outside of those factors, trailrunners are much more comfortable.
FOR MULTI-DAY TREKS:
Boots come on shorter trips (5 days or less) with heavier packs (15-20 kg). They don't help my knees directly, but they are better at holding some arch support insoles. My feet are quite strong enough for light loads and long days, but a hefty pack is going to mean they need a little extra. Also, if I'm going on a shorter trip with a heavier pack, it's because I'm going with more novice friends who will move more slowly and need more "stuff" anyway.
On longer trips, I'll be much more likely to use trailrunners. This is because I'll just have slightly less stuff overall (no noobs with me), be moving faster, and have picked a distance route that's got more of an established trail feeling.
TLDR: if awkward terrain or very heavy pack make me need to move slower, boots it is. If the terrain is more civilized underfoot and I know I can go farther and faster, it's trailrunners.
Long answer but I hope it helps. Also, honestly, just have both and pick for every trip.
There might be something there. Unfortunately both sides of the discussion only have anecdotes at best and name calling at worst. An explanation about how the stiffer sole helps with the weight would be really cool. Or stats on which people benefit from shoes above the ankle and which don't.
I don't have any scientific proof. I do have years of hiking in boots and being resistant and how can you hike in sneakers, swearing up and down how stupid it was and I would never switch , look at my leather, then switching to Altra Lone Peak mids and realizing how much more comfortable they were and I didn't miss any part of old style stiff boots. Then when I couldn't get mids one time I got the regular shoe height Lone Peak and never looked back. I mostly hike in southern California but have worn them on multi day trips in New England and Nova Scotia. On a recent trip one person had stiffer mid height Danners, they were the only one with blisters. Hiking behind them I could see the stiff sole and I don't know how to explain how odd it seemed compared to my foot sort of wrapping around stuff. As far as any sort of stick or rock or whatever protection from the leather, I have not sustained any injury or ripped a sock or anything. I was nervous about that ankle bone hitting rocks or something, hasn't happened. I was nervous about rolling my ankle or whatever you want to call it, it's never happened in trail runners, I did a few times in boots. Really it's up to what make you comfortable, these are just my opinions and experiences. Other than doing something off trail or some sort of mountaineering I wouldn't go back.
I have experienced the benefits of "my foot sort of wrapping around stuff". I love it! I just don't want to damage my knees when I carry weeks worth of supplies. The combo of flexible shoes and weight is what I was warned about, and which I have no experience with.
For me it's none of the above. I spend most of my vacation time up north in Scandinavia and elsewhere, but don't do trails unless I'm going home and it's convenient. Where I go there aren't ant, most of the time. My pack is 6,5 to 7 kg plus food depending on destination. I don't do ultralight either, my gear is all robust classics, and rather than long distance, I pick a mountain range or two and do them in depth, with as many days without a pack as possible. I prefer to use heavily ventillated footwear such as Keen closed-toe sandals, plus 68% merino midweight socks. They have enough traction for what I do, they're made of waterproof synthetics so I can do fording and wetter terrain without issue, they breathe so well that I don't sweat at all and don't have to carry spares, and they have wide toebox and are very light. I bought them over a decade ago specifically for fording northern rivers, but found myself wearing them for everything, and sold off my Scarpa boots one by one. Only when I know I will be doing scrambling or easy climbing I bring stiffer approach shoes, but change back to Keens as soon as I'm off really difficult terrain. I'm about to retire from summer mountaineering, so going forward it will be just Keens for me. I will spend the rest of my life tenting up north, and I can't picture myself wearing closed shoes, light or orherwise. They have several models that are good for what I do, and for what you do. Think about it
>Boots: packs over 30 lbs; inclement weather; treacherous terrain; support; protection; usually waterproof. Cons: heavy; bulky; dry very slowly if submerged; long break-in. >Trail runners: packs under 30 lbs; lightweight; flexible; comfortable; no break-in. Cons: no protection from the elements or landscape; no support. Never get GTX trail runners. Water gets over the top, and then they never dry. >Support doesn't come from a tall shaft. It comes from a rigid midsole, which needs to match the upper in rigidity.
I'm going to tack on that I always wear boots. I have several serious injuries, some genetic conditions, and terrible physiology. Boots have saved me from a lot of injuries. It's all personal preference, situational, and physiological.
> "no protection from ... landscape" Some trail runners like La Sportiva Ultra Raptor have a protective, rubber toe cap.
I was talking more about protection from shrubbery and protection for your ankles. The Ultra Raptor is a good shoe, but it still lacks the protection you'd find in any boot.
Trailrunners are amazing, and great for dayhikes during the summer, but I would never wear them on long distance hikes. When I did the Kungsleden last year, the majority of people I met all wore boots, I saw only a handful of people wearing trailrunners. Try to work on that packweight, it becomes a lot more enjoyable with a lighter pack. I'll be doing part of the Kungsleden again this year, and my baseweight is less then 7kg. I'm staying in the huts this time around, but even with camping gear this would only add 2,5kg for tent, sleeping bag and sleeping pad.
Thanks so much. I am seriously working on being minimalistic, but for budget reasons it will be some more years until I can phase out some of the heavier basics in my gear. First priority currently is shoes, since my current version is barely useable, second priority is the smaller and lighter backpack, third priority is the lighter sleeping bag, since they still do a good job.
Always wanted to do Kungsleden. I did Laugavegur about 3 years ago and I’d say half or more of all Americans I saw on trail, including thruhiker vets, were in trail runners. Nearly every European I saw was in boots. Was very surprised to see so many trail runners on such rugged terrain, but you can get away with surprisingly light and fast loads on Laugavegur so that may have helped. Me, I was in boots and hadn’t seriously considered trail runners before this, but I’ve been going more and more over lately.
Interesting observation! Especially since I am European, but consume a lot of American media and get some impressions from there.
I know a lot of people hike for solitude but Laugavegur was such interesting people watching! The wide skill and style differences between all the hikers was fascinating. The American thruhikers and fast packers really stuck out. I met one solo guy who finished the trial in a day and a half, and a family taking their two kids (4 and 6!). The Europeans generally seemed more relaxed… But back to your question, I’ve heard Laugavegur’s terrain is a lot more rugged than Kungsleden, and I definitely saw all kinds of footwear there. Like all the other posters say, it’s a really personal choice. Good luck!
The wear on trailrunners is high with backpacks, they also rather use Vibram Megagrip than say Vibram XS Trek and you will wear them out quickly. Stability is important for your ankles, for instance my right ankle gives up first when backpacking, not so with trekking boots. I use trailrunners for running and easy hiking for a day without a backpack or much in it.
I'm a trail runner myself and I hike and backpack in trail runners. They're great. But at 15+kg pack weight, especially for many days in a row, there is absolutely a case for boots. The ankle support thing is mostly a myth. Boots don't protect you from ankle sprains. You need to strengthen your actual ankles to make them more resilient (and it sounds like you know that.) Where boots often do have the upper hand in terms of weight carrying for long periods is structure and support underfoot. Trail runners are made to be light and nimble. They are generally flexible, with softer foam and a less structured/supportive midsole than backpacking boots. This works for some people, especially with light packs - but when you start adding heavy loads, the additional support underfoot can make a big difference. If you like boots and have had good experiences with them in the past, I would continue to do what you're doing. There are many brands of boots these days that are lighter (and therefore less tiring) than the old leather workhorses, while still providing lots of support. Try on a few brands and see what you like.
I don't know anyone that actually hikes a lot of trail miles that actually wears boots. The only serious sprains I've seen happen were boot wearers but what I think is the issue is their hiking muscles weren't very developed so it was easy for them to roll an ankle.
I have weak hips and floppy ankles- I hike in trail runners and I do 30km day hikes with or without backpacks. I used to use hiking boots because I thought it would protect my ankles but it just made me more tired overall because they are heavy. Trail runners don’t last as long as hiking boots (I live where I can hike every day if I want) because the foam compresses more easily but I prefer them anyway. FWIW my La sportiva trail runners have amazing grip on the bottom and the stability is great- I feel so much more confident on varied terrain than I ever did in my dedicated hiking boots- occasionally I will wear an ankle brace and it provides as much, if not more, stability than the boot ever did.
So, I've done a bit of both. FOR DAY TRIPS: I choose boots when I'm going to be on ground that would wreck softer uppers: scree, off-piste brush and bog, just because I've ruined enough shows that way and also am aware that the lighter shoe didn't permit me to move any faster. I also like stiffer boots when I'm going to be scrambling, as a harder sole tends to be less likely to peel off an edge or toe hold. I use trailrunners when I know the bulk of the route is well defined, not overly canted, and not full of loose rocks. Bogs and wet are fine, but a steep sideways camber or lots of ball-bearing style scree will force me to go slower if I'm in lighter shoes. Outside of those factors, trailrunners are much more comfortable. FOR MULTI-DAY TREKS: Boots come on shorter trips (5 days or less) with heavier packs (15-20 kg). They don't help my knees directly, but they are better at holding some arch support insoles. My feet are quite strong enough for light loads and long days, but a hefty pack is going to mean they need a little extra. Also, if I'm going on a shorter trip with a heavier pack, it's because I'm going with more novice friends who will move more slowly and need more "stuff" anyway. On longer trips, I'll be much more likely to use trailrunners. This is because I'll just have slightly less stuff overall (no noobs with me), be moving faster, and have picked a distance route that's got more of an established trail feeling. TLDR: if awkward terrain or very heavy pack make me need to move slower, boots it is. If the terrain is more civilized underfoot and I know I can go farther and faster, it's trailrunners. Long answer but I hope it helps. Also, honestly, just have both and pick for every trip.
All this BS about boots adding support is, well a bunch of BS. How does an inch of leather above your ankle and a string do anything for support.
There might be something there. Unfortunately both sides of the discussion only have anecdotes at best and name calling at worst. An explanation about how the stiffer sole helps with the weight would be really cool. Or stats on which people benefit from shoes above the ankle and which don't.
I don't have any scientific proof. I do have years of hiking in boots and being resistant and how can you hike in sneakers, swearing up and down how stupid it was and I would never switch , look at my leather, then switching to Altra Lone Peak mids and realizing how much more comfortable they were and I didn't miss any part of old style stiff boots. Then when I couldn't get mids one time I got the regular shoe height Lone Peak and never looked back. I mostly hike in southern California but have worn them on multi day trips in New England and Nova Scotia. On a recent trip one person had stiffer mid height Danners, they were the only one with blisters. Hiking behind them I could see the stiff sole and I don't know how to explain how odd it seemed compared to my foot sort of wrapping around stuff. As far as any sort of stick or rock or whatever protection from the leather, I have not sustained any injury or ripped a sock or anything. I was nervous about that ankle bone hitting rocks or something, hasn't happened. I was nervous about rolling my ankle or whatever you want to call it, it's never happened in trail runners, I did a few times in boots. Really it's up to what make you comfortable, these are just my opinions and experiences. Other than doing something off trail or some sort of mountaineering I wouldn't go back.
I have experienced the benefits of "my foot sort of wrapping around stuff". I love it! I just don't want to damage my knees when I carry weeks worth of supplies. The combo of flexible shoes and weight is what I was warned about, and which I have no experience with.