I've been using the Scarpa Mirage boot most of this 'summer' for general hill walking and scrambling in the Lakes and Wales.

They're great for scrambling and great for winter (B2 rated) and not so bad for ascending but I've had a lot of problems descending in them. A couple of miles of descent, especially on erosion-proofed paths leave me demoralised

I'm seriously considering boycotting boots altogether in the summer and switching instead to the FiveTen Camp Four approach shoe or something similar.  Has anyone else switched from boots to approach shoes for general hill walking and scrambling?

I've been doing a fair few bodyweight squats and calf raises as of late which I've found really helpful for ascending (even more so than weighted squats) but don't seem to have helped at all on descending in these boots.

Cheers,

There's no reason whatsoever to be clumping around in the British Summer in hefty boots designed for steep ice and punching holes in hard snow! Some people are happy in them but that's no reason for anyone else to perservere!

The stiff soles are only going to make those nasty pitched paths even more awkwardly angled, however much gym you do, so I'd ditch the YetiKickers and try something lighter. I've really liked my FiveTen Guides but after a failed experiment involving rain and Welsh grass I wouldn't recommend them in the wet. 

You might prefer something a bit more versatile and I'd suggest you look at running shoes as well as the "approach shoes" from the usual outdoor brands. Running shoes tend to be better made and less prone to gimmicky design that doesn't do the job. ASICS, New Balance, Puma and Adidas all do excellent trail shoes.

Yeah,  I think I have made a mistake using them in summer! I have some decent trail running shoes that I might try in the Lakes next time. 

Someone stopped me last month and said "is that a 4 season boot?" No! It's 3 season! 

Cheers,

Do some searching on here, this type of question comes up lots of times before.

I've got boots for hard winter time then intermix between my inov-8 terrocs and my north face adrenaline mid-cuts.

You will probably find your trail running shoes effective for walking & scrambling and they'll be so much lighter that you'll move better over the mixed terrain.

I cut about in a mixture of Montrails, Inov8s and Keens most of the time. I like mids as well as they grip onto my skinny heels and ankles.

Boots make me sad now. The softness of trail shoes does give you tired feet at first, but you soon get used to it, toughen up and your movement improves incredibly, more dexterity, better balance. Aye, trail shoes are the way forward.

btw, Scarpa Mirages are my winter boots along with Keen Growlers. The Mirages are way too stiff and  constrictive on anything but snow and ice for me, but they are really light and match the GSB crampons really well.

Here's a couple of shots of us lot to prove the point On Nevis and the CMD Arete in Montrail Highlanders and Namches.

Over the last 3 years or so ive used approach shoes more and more,there light,supportive and seem to put less strain on tired knees when descending.

I do also use Zamberlan treklite boots which I tend to use mainly when on hut to hut walks in the alps,these I find V water resistent/proof fairly light and with out goretex linnings which I find hot/sweaty and slow to dry.

I've always felt sceptical about the ability of most walking boots to "protect" ankles.  I'm very happy to agree that they will protect ankles from knocks, but to me they would need to come much further up the shin, be much stiffer and grip much harder to do any sort of job of protecting people from something like a twisted ankle.  In fact, they'd have to be pretty much like ski boots.

I have to admit, though, that this is an uninformed view.  Does anyone out there have an "informed" opinion?

For lighter walking, I have tried a few approach and trail running shoes.

TNF Buildering shoes are really good for genuine approach purposes (getting a heavy pack of climbing gear from the car boot a few km up the the base of a crag) as they stick extremely well to dry rock. They lace up like a rock shoe and have a surprising amount of lateral stiffness - for edging - so are fine for climbing low grade routes and being able to walk down afterwards. I have not yet tried a full day's walking in them, but I suspect they'd do alright but would wear out fairly fast. Also a bit hot due to the high rand...

For lowland wanders in any weather barring snow , I often use Salomon Techamphibians. These are a great allrounder and also serve as my river shoes. Keeps your feet nice and cool with adequate protection from bumps and scrapes.

For trail running I have yet to make the transition to a classic fell shoe because I like a good amount of cushioning. Eventually I intend to test out some Montrails or Inov8s but for now I am very pleased with my New Balance 87n's (I am still on the 871s but they are now up to 873 and have made some good improvements). These tend to come travelling with me too as they are good for walking in ,although surprisingly slippery on some pavements!. I agree with Marcus that there are plenty of running shoe manufacturers who have turned their strong pedigree of road shoes to making trail runners & walkers. I'd like to try Mizuno's offerings as these are my favourite road shoes at present (I have the Wave Creations for longer training and Wave Precision for speed work or competition). I also had a lot of time for the now-obselete Asics Gel Guts which are tough and very grippy on soft mud.

In reply to David above, I'm not sure how 'informed' is informed and I certainly make no claims to be an expert but I spent some time working with a foot and ankle surgeon who was into a bit of the outdoor stuff himself and we spent some time discussing this very thing.

His view in essence was the whole ankle support thing with big heavy boots was a load of bunk. The best ankle protection is ligaments and muscle not dead cows.

You build these up by use not by strapping them up and forgetting about them. The body has little miracles of nature called proprioceptors which respond to tiny spacial movements and make unconcious adjustments to multiple muscle groups to keep you upright and going where you ars going. strap these up and they have nothing to respond to.

On the back of this I now use inov8s and mizumo ascends for road running fell running and hillwalking and my ankles have never felt better. Good news for cows.

You wont regret it John. More support than roclites but still give you that special in touch with the ground feel. Just cant beat that feeling. And so good for proprioceptors.

I've just spotted the Ascends on offer at £34.95 here:

Cheap Mizunos!

Bargain at the price?

Looks like they've also got the Harrier and GoreTex Lined Arashi on special offer too.

Has anyone tried both Harrier and Ascend to give me an idea of the differences?

I am about to sell a kidney online to be able to replace my much loved Wave Creations with the new model so probably won't be buying off-road shoes for a while yet. But those do look like good prices for the mizuno off-road models.

John

Hi Airman,

I can only give comparative comments on their road running shoes as I haven't yet tried their trail shoes. But I think they use much the same last anyway, so it should be relevant.

I find the Mizunos to be wider than equivalent shoes from New Balance & Adidas but perhaps slightly narrower than Asics. I have an average width fitting, but find some shoes too close in the toe. Mizunos fit me well and I really like their firm cushioning. I have to go up a size compared to my day-to-day shoes though (on all three brands).

The best idea is to try some on! Even if you can't get the model you are thinking of purchasing, you'll see how they fit.

in answer to the above boot vs shoe question the answer is simple

carry less in the rucksack and wear lighter boots/shoes. by combining the two approaches you will save wear and tear on ligaments, muscles, joints, bones and be less prone to have a bad fall

a lb on the foot is worth five in the sack or put another way if you wear a pair of 3lb boots your feet and legs will end up doing the equivalent work of carrying 15lbs on your back. Also unless in snow and ice, a heavy boot is more likely to unbalance you and lead to more serious injuries than a lighter boot or shoe. this is physics and cannot be refuted. the only other angle is comfort and confidence. If you feel happier with a heavy boot go for it but just be aware of the limitations 

Dave,

I agree that it is much more energetically costly to carry load on the feet as opposed to the back or waist. The classic Soule & Goldman study of 1969 suggested a factor of about six (recent studies on backpacking boots say it's 6.4 times as 'expensive' in energy terms).

But that doesn't always mean it is a good idea to wear light footwear. For one thing, you get fitter and burn more fat if your feet are loaded (walking  with heavy shoes is a very effective way of losing weight and staying fit). Plus there's the protective aspect of boots on loose terrain. And (good) boots take a lot more wear and tear than most approach shoes, so will be a better long term investment for the economically minded.

For me, it's nice to have the choice; light walking or scrambling in light shoes or more robust boots for more grizzly days out. I know there are those on this site who can happily tackle some pretty tough ground without boots, but for medical reasons of corrected CTEV,  I am not one of them. And I have been out with others of similar fitness in approach shoes while I had boots on and saw how much more difficulty they were having on a scree descent than I was.  

On balance, I agree with your very reasonable advice. But claiming "this is physics and cannot be refuted." is misleading... all physical theories are postulated with the expectation that others should try to refute them. And there are dozens of factors in choosing the right footwear. Weight/energy expenditure are just one (very important) consideration.