Comments on: Shoe Comparison: Off Road

By: 1,400 Mile Shoes « Rogue Priest

1,400 Mile Shoes « Rogue Priest — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:53:46 +0000

[...] the question I left you with yesterday. My long quest for shoes is finally over. So after all the tests and ideas, what did I go [...]

By: Shoe Comparison: Running « Rogue Priest

Shoe Comparison: Running « Rogue Priest — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:10:10 +0000

[...] I got a pair of Chuck Taylor All Stars, which have a thick heel and pronounced arch support like most athletic shoes, and a pair of Steve Madden canvas shoes with a sole as thin and flat as a piece of leather. You may remember me comparing these on a 6.5 mile hike on asphalt and off-road, scrambling over a bluff. [...]

By: Stress Fracture « Rogue Priest

Stress Fracture « Rogue Priest — Mon, 07 May 2012 13:01:21 +0000

[...] habits that’s still risky. I’ve been trying out different footwear. I’ve been comparing thin-soled flat shoes versus padded athletic shoes. And I’ve been strongly leaning toward the [...]

By: Rua Lupa

Rua Lupa — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:49:58 +0000

I suspected such results for this one. My vote is on the canvas shoes.

By: Educated Savage

Educated Savage — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:28:56 +0000

I live in flip flops, but when I do my photography, I’m often hiking out into the sandy and/or rocky desert. When I do this, I wear a cheap pair of pumas I found somewhere on clearance. They have SOME padding to them, but not a whole lot – just enough to save my feet from the sharp rocks and with enough traction to keep me from sliding all over the place. If it’s an option, maybe try cheap (aka “bad”) athletic shoes for a compromise.

By: Drew Jacob

Drew Jacob — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 07:25:09 +0000

I hadn't seen that, but checking it out now! Susan, mostly I'm testing whether a shoe with a padded heel and arch support (most hiking shoes and athletic shoes) is better or worse than a flat sole. I think I first got into that issue here. As for why these exact two brands, no reason – they're just perfect examples of those two styles of shoe.

By: Drew Jacob

Drew Jacob — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 07:19:19 +0000

I’d really like to have two pairs, but I hesitate. It also means at least 4 lbs of additional weight. That doesn’t sound like much but a 36 pound pack is way nicer than a 40 pound pack.

Right now I’m leaning toward Lucius’ suggestion above – but only if I can make it work. Like you said, this is mucho important gear.

By: Drew Jacob

Drew Jacob — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 07:10:04 +0000

I think that might be the very best way to go, Lucius. At least that’s definitely how I’m leaning ad present. Thank you!

By: susanTblake

susanTblake — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:04:36 +0000

I agree with Beth. Also, have you read Erik the Black’s recommendations on shoes for thru-hikers? http://blackwoodspress.com/blog/1784/best-hiking-shoes/.

Also, I’m curious – I don’t remember reading about how you came up with the two candidates you’re testing. Have you talked about that?

By: Beth

Beth — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:11:07 +0000

You know, one option would be to have both available, if they really do seem to each be advantageous in different situations. I know you have to pack light, but this is arguably the most important gear you’ll have in terms of avoiding injury. If it really does seem that they both have their place, then maybe you bring both and choose according to your terrain. It seems quite logical to me that you might need different equipment for different conditions.