UKC

On the Grough website today, the Patterdale MRT have recorded their 40th callout to walkers with ankle injuries.
Is this just volume of traffic, bad luck, doziness, or, are people just unable to walk on uneven terrain anymore?

In reply to Skol:

I wonder what the proportion of incidents are on man made compared to natural path surfaces.

The pitched paths in the Lakes can be an absolute pain.

In reply to Rick Graham:

Interesting thought, but I don't know. The article on grough says she was descending from the Knott, and shows a rough track with pebbles on, not one of those slabby ones.

In reply to Skol:

Footwear?

In reply to climbwhenready:
Mmm. Possibly? Are you talking boots v approach shoes, or just badly soled footwear?
It would be interesting to know the footwear that the injured were wearing.

In reply to Skol:

I was thinking it would be interesting to know what people were wearing. If there's a trend for either a) people to wander into the hills in trainers, or b) towards wearing approach shoes, that might be relevant. But I don't know if it is or not.

I've stumbled on my ankle in approach shoes before. But I don't want to carry size 12 big boots up a climb!

In reply to climbwhenready:


Me neither.


The only time I've sprained my ankle is in 3 season boots in the summer( scarpa sl's, and my fault). For most of the year I wear approach shoes now.
Forty call outs to ankle injuries is a lot. I may dig out the MRT reports to see of the footwear was inappropriate .

In reply to Skol:


I think you've misread it. They recorded their 40th incident of the year (any cause, including false alarms and dogs). There have been 4 ankle injuries in the last 4 days.

In reply to Skol:

Personally i find the heels on walking boots make it more likely I'll turn an ankle not less. I find approach shoes better in this regard. I don't think a little leather makes much odds once the boots are worn in. They do perform differently when walking across a slope mind - where I'll much prefer a proper walking boot that can dig in on the edges.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Possibly! Not doing well tonight! Thank feck you're around to correct me

In reply to Skol:

I seem to go over on my ankle all the time, but am quite fortunate that I have enough flexibility that doing so doesn't actually cause me an injury. Might well be because I did it so much as a kid.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

Quite possibly your ligaments have become lax due to repeated sprains? I found this the case after my initial ankle injury. I would ' go over ' on my ankle regularly but it was pain free. Proprioception exercises helped.

In reply to Skol:

Could well be. Doesn't cause me any problems. Indeed given how "cack footed" (if there was such a term) I am I think it's an advantage.

Neil

In reply to climbwhenready:

Mrt member here. Loads of ankles, our most common call out. The vast majority, ime, are wearing 'proper' walking boots that would be considered suitable for the conditions. Make of that what you will, probably that most hill walkers wear boots.

In reply to Skol:

I reckon mobile phones allow people to call the mrt quite easily where as years ago they would have hobbled down under their own steam.

In reply to Tom the tall:


And? Have I tickled your arse?

In reply to Skol:


Most replies on UKC, I can make some sense of.

Nope. Can't get anything out of that.

In reply to Skol:

Is the trend up then? Can't really comment unless you see other years' figures.

In reply to Skol:

Walkers are suffering ankle injuries because they insist on clunking about the hills in ridiculous ,heavy boots that give them a false sense of stability and security.

I wouldn't dream of ever wearing boots on a hill again.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I am currently recovering from ligament repair surgery, after several years of the problem that you describe. I'd keep an eye on it if I were you and at the very least have it examined.

In reply to Skol:
Three responses to this thing:

Traditional hillwalker says - It's down to all these irresponsible people wearing trainers in the hill, what they need is heavy leather boots for ankle support.

Fell runner/fitty says - It's down to all these irresponsible people wearing clunky boots and expecting them to support weak ankles.

Tabloid response - as traditional hillwalker but also they were probably wearing jeans and playing whats ap on their phone so should be shot on site. And why don't people take out insurance and get hill walking licences before heading out into the treachery of the Lake District Mountains. And why the fuck weren't they wearing a safety rope??? We need to sort this shit out before the children gets hurt and everyone gets cancer.

In reply to Skol:
I'd be intrigued to know more about the locations / terrain as to where these injuries happened, and if there's any trends.

In reply to Morty:

Or...it could just be I'm quite flexible! I wouldn't describe the fact that I can bend that way as a "problem"?

Neil

In reply to andymac:

Kind of agree, unless it's snow & ice underfoot I always wear shoes and reckon my ankles are stronger for it.

In reply to richparry:

This probably. It's quite possible to walk out on even a broken ankle, or a full ligament tear. But it hurts, so why not get a chopper?

With absolutely no evidence whatsoever, I'd suggest that the number of ankle injuries has remained stable over the last 50 years.

In reply to Tom the tall:

Have to say I am amazed that people call out mrt for a sprained ankle. I can remember hopping down from 3000m leaning on an axe after a more serious knee injury (sustained by too hasty moves after being struck by lightning).

In reply to Skol:
I think footwear is a red herring. You can see two people descend the same path with loose stones and rocks wearing essentially the same footwear. One will skip down barely disturbing the ground or a rock moving. The other will slip and slide, disturbing every rock or bit of scree they pass. If you increase the numbers, then simple numbers say you'll get more of the former as well as the latter. The latter tend to have years of hill walking (or fell funning) and know how to move on the terrain, how and where to place feet, and how to maintain balance and poise.

Have you also noticed some friends are really good at ascending but poor descenders, despite years of hill walking?

In reply to Orgsm:

Did you mix up former and latter? I think some people just never get good at going downhill.


I'm pretty awful at descending without poles. My ankles seem to roll easily and it does hurt unfortunately. I did get quite a few sprains as a kid.

In reply to ablackett:



I thought Tom the tall was having a pop. Sorry if he wasn't

In reply to Orgsm:

Other than I misread the grough thread and got the figures wrong( 4 injuries not forty), this was one of the things that I thought could have caused such high injury levels. I've seen a lot of people floundering around on not too difficult terrain with seemingly good footwear.
I'm not one of the hill police, I was just interested in what was causing such a high injury rate.

In reply to Skol:

The appropriateness of arse-tickling is so incredibly context dependent.

Is the injury rate higher than usual? I thought (with no references) that ankle injuries were one of the most common hill walking injuries and have been forever.

Maybe more people are getting out into the hills recently?

In reply to Bob_the_Builder:

I agree
Probably. An MRT member may correct though? I know this guy was having a pop.

Especially in Patterdale

In reply to Skol:

The way I read it was that ankle injuries are common and that because most walkers wear boots there are many boot wearing walkers with injured ankles

In reply to Ffion Blethyn:


And?? Did I tickle your arse?

In reply to Bob_the_Builder:

think you have hit the nail on the head there

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02653/snowdon-2_2653505k.jpg

In reply to Duncan Bourne:



Don't you just love the quiet solitude of the mountains. =D

I think more people in the outdoors is a good thing though. I don't feel the need to go to Snowdon particularly. Maybe in winter when it is less busy.

In reply to Skol:


So, everyone is saying the same thing.

Where's the pop? I better have a glass before there's any more talk of tickling or any other type of hilarity

In reply to Skol:


Two misreadings so far. Not a good week, eh...?

In reply to captain paranoia:


No, it's not. Could I have your username please?

In reply to Skol:

weather, dehydrated muscles and tendons plus a dry uncompromising surface.

d

In reply to Skol:

I too think the footwear issue is a red herring. Fell runners don't wear boots and neither do most hill farmers - they wear wellingtons in wet weather! Once your ankles are 'hill fit' it doesn't matter what you wear on your feet. (High heels excepted!)

The main reason people turn their ankles, I think, is simply weak muscles/tendons. I'm sure there are not too many fit(ish) walkers, runners, farmers etc., on here who twist their ankles regardless of footwear. I know sometimes i do 'turn' an ankle and it hurts for a few minutes, but thats all. Perhaps when I was younger it would have been more incapacitating.

Another reason is people's expectations of what has happened to them and the consequences. Many years ago, i twisted my ankle on the fells around Patterdale. It hurt. I simply limped back to camp and by next morning it was considerably better. Nowadays, perhaps, people expect that MR can be summoned quickly and that is what they think they are there for.

In reply to Dave Perry:


Fellrunners turn ankles too - but perhaps they have a greater expectation of sorting things out themselves. I did last year, came down the hill on my bum, and hopped to the road. It certainly wasn't better the next day! Nor was the guy in the Ennerdale fell race who fractured his knee, and as he was being helped down to the valley by other runners was heard to say "I think I can put some weight on it".

In reply to Dave Perry:


Fell runners are a self selected group. You don't get many 'heavy footfall' type individuals who persist with fell running. Therefore they wear footwear that suits their strategy for moving on the hills.

People wear boots for a variety of reasons. In my own case, to accommodate the deficiency of an arthritic big toe. The foot is no longer able to conform to the surface of a boulder I'm moving across, to 'grip' it, balance, and propel me off it. Instead, the stiffened boot splints the poorly functioning bit so that the foot acts like a paddle.
Being reasonably hill fit, the well developed stability at knee/hip/trunk is not therefore limited by a dodgy toe.
I seem to have less trouble negotiating the hills than many others- the 'clompers' of all ages, increasing numbers of whom are shod in trail shoes, mere followers of fashion.
Seeing some struggling with stabilising themselves on uneven ground, it seems as if they are rather like a person who'd be better off with glasses, but believes that 'if I don't wear glasses, my eyes will be stronger'.
They're just as much following the herd as those who respond to the mantra ' always wear stout footwear when venturing onto the lakeland fells'- It's just that it's a different herd.

In reply to Skol:

Aside from the confusion about numbers, it seems to me reasonable that ankle injuries would make up a fair number of call-outs.

Of all injuries on the hills, most will be minor and, regardless of footwear, due to slipping or falling over. Speaking for myself, I'd have to do some serious damage to my arm or shoulder before I decided I couldn't walk off. Leg injuries are much more likely to make it difficult or impossible to walk out yourself and I'd expect the ankles to be more vulnerable to twists and sprains than the knees or hips. I don't think you need to look further than that.

In reply to NathanP:
I agree. Ankles are probably the most susceptible to injury.
As I've said above , I got the numbers wrong, so the thread is not really valid.
Interestingly though, as Llechwedd offers, there are a lot of hillwalkers wearing 'fashion' footwear who are unstable on the rough ground, as well as people in big boots.
I never intended to 'witch hunt' hillwalkers on their choice of footwear, but was interested in the reasons for lower limb injuries/falls.
Are today's walkers more clumsy?

In reply to Skol:


On average, they're probably heavier, so more torque is applied at the ankle when they do stumble.
But there again, they're probably not carrying as much extra weight in gear as previous hillgoers.

I was going to say there are more groups on the hills nowadays, so perhaps more opportunity to become distracted. But the same could probably be said about the interwar years when hostelling was much more common than today and the hills a popular destination.
I wonder if carrying kit such as mobile phone cameras, GPS kit, gopro etc have a distracting effect on the owner, even when they're not being actively used. No longer just you, the hill,and memories, nowadays there's more capturing of evidence that you've had a good time.
I guess the difference now is the much more sedentary lifestyle of most between their trips to the hills, so maybe hillgoing people on average aren't as proprioceptively fit nowadays.