UKC

I was just reading http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-16332930 about a Twitter Snowdonia mountain advice service, and saw that I should be wearing "ankle-supporting" walking boots.

Personally I feel far more stable in low-cut running shoes. Having my foot flexible and closer too the ground seem to make me less likely to mis-step, and I also wonder if a stiff boot might turn a mildly turned but recoverable ankle into a more severe injury.

Is there any research either way for healthy walkers ? I appreciate that people recovering from injuries may have specific needs for splinting etc., and technical scrambing and winter conditions have a different set of requirements. But I do suspect that the push for supportive boots comes initially from the footwear industry and has been adopted as received wisdom without critical appraisal.

I am concerned that (a) should I ever need rescue in the hills, I might get told off for being improperly equipped and (b) people are being scared off from making their first steps into the hills by the financial barrier of a big pair of boots.

In reply to Gone:

It was received wisdom when I started buying my own walking kit (30 years ago) that you needed boots, and personally, I'm happier in boots if I'm not in a good path.

There's lots of people who are perfectly safe in trainer-type things in the hills. I don't know of any proper research into the issue.

Y.

In reply to Gone:

ask a fell runner. I think they have the answer!

In reply to Gone:

Trainers (and many approach shoes) offer absolutely no traction on muddy/glassy slopes, resulting in falls which could result in injury. I suspect the advice is aimed at the occasional walker/tourist who will go out poorly equiped simply because they don't realise the inadequacies of their footwear.
Yep good quality boots are expensive but look in the "supermarket-style" outdoor shops and you can pick up a pair of cheap boots for less than a pair of trainers, so I hardly think cost is prohibitive.

In your case I am sure although your footwear may lack ankle support you will have good soles, also a familiarity with walking/running off-road will probably reduce your chances of turning an ankle.

Personally I believe that on several occasions good ankle support is all that has prevented me needing medical attention (or MR assistance) for a turned ancle, so I prefer to accept the shortfallings of heavy boots.

In reply to top cat:

This fell runner would say it is a calculated risk, fell shoes are often preferable, but the risk of an ankle injury is definately greater.

In reply to Gone:

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Basically big boots will make it harder to roll your ankle on uneven ground.

Just wear whatever you're comfy in.

As for angry MRT teams telling you off, whatever stupid thing you've done, they will have seen much worse. I would've thought not too many people had to rescued because they wore trainers instead of boots. However, plenty will have been rescued because of no insulating or waterproof clothing, no torch, no map and compass, failed to check weather forecast, failed to plan routes properly etc etc.

In reply to Gone:

When I took up long-distance backpacking in the hills, my chief adviser was a GP who walked from Land's End to John O'Groats in two-week stages and spent all his spare time researching kit, and his advice was to wear fell-running shoes and not boots. He said the ankle has its own supports and it's far better to have the flexibility. With a long-term ankle problem from just a week in the Cairngorms wearing plastic mountain boots with zero flexibility, I can only agree with him.

In reply to blondel:

I find it interesting what you say about having an ankle problem from wearing a plastic boot for a week, i've been looking at chainsaw boots reacently, and have noticed that the more expensive ones are made to let you walk in a more natural way, for if you're wearing them all day everyday for work, and the cheap ones I wore for my assesment aren't very natural to walk in at all.

I think my walking boots would have stopped me tearing an ankle ligament one time a few years ago, I can remember being in trainers and stumbling with a heavy rucksack, and feeling my ankle go over further than it would have in my boots, I think even semi-stiff boots allow a bit of a natural gait compared to plastic boots. It comes down to finding what works best for the individual I suppose. My Meindle semi-stiff boots don't seem to give me any problems.

Tim

In reply to Gone:

Those who regularly walk on broken ground are likely to have stronger and more responsive ankles and be better able to cope with the demands of Snowdonia in shoes.

So in response to OP:
(a) I think most people involved with mountain sports would recognise that someone who is experienced knows their ankles well enough to make a decent judgement.
(b) Not so much scaring off the unwary as drawing their attention to how most people cope with the particular dangers of mountainous terrain.

In reply to Gone: I think there's more to consider here than "healthy walkers", someone runing isn't going to be carrying a heavy rucsac that might contain climbing or camping equipment and if you do go over on your ankle carrying a heavy weight your more likely to do more damage.

I,ve broken and chipped my right ankle a few times but not hillwalking, it's now weaker than my left so I like a boot with support, older people and anyone with osteoporosis, obesity____ are probably better of with ankle support unless expeienced and fit, people who get tired easily are also more liable to bad foot placement and possible injury.

In reply to Gone: As far as I'm concerned 'ankle support' doesn't come from having a high topped boot it comes from support around the heel and arch of the foot. Lots of boots have totally flat footbeds which give no support to the foot. Even good boots, take a look under the insole of a meindl burma or a Scarpa ranger and you'll find a totally flat foot bed offering no support. With no support to prevent coming off balance or misplacing your foot, all that's left is a soft flexible upper which will hopefully limit the damage of a twisted ankle.

Boot's have their uses but I'm not conviced they help your ankles. I've yet to twist my ankle in running shoes because my ankle can flex and support me whatever orientation my foot is in. With a light pair of trainers on you have good grip, precision and you can feel where your foot is in a way you can't with a big boot on. I've tripped and seen others trip with boots on inumerable times though.

If you're ankles are too weak to support you and you need to attack a big hill day without any training or time to build up then boots aren't going to save your ankles from injury. If you don't want to use your ankles to walk then either wear strapped up ski boots or splint them and be done with it, thinking a soft flexible boot upper is going to immobilise your ankle is nonsense.

Ben

In reply to Gone:

I wouldn't give up my boots for anything. I move faster and more confidently on typical terrain in boots, plus they have saved me from an injury or two on occasion.

But I have been around in this game for a lot longer than you would think. I know situations, have friends who wear less supportive footwear in the hills and have done so myself (and will again). Everyone I know who does this is balancing the chance of a small injury in a bad environment (which goes wrong quickly) over the need for speed, kit volume reduction or the delicate touch.

I some cases the objective, space in your sac or the range of terrain supports the use of shoes however, the line between this and boots is personal and site specific. This means that a responsible person or group cannot offer pubic advice saying that it is okay to be in these environments in potentially inadequate footwear.

Good, well fitted, boots offer better support than shoes (a few days doing my last job will convince any nae sayer) but do you need that support? Do you need that speed, should you not just get fitter?

In reply to Sharp: I would agree with you that many of boots now are too soft in the ankle region which seems to be the trend with maufacturers now, however most people that like a boot with ankle support don't want to immoblise the ankle just have enough support to stop you breaking something.

In reply to Garbhanach:

Or to help with the kind of tired stumble that can end up in a sprained ankle.

In reply to Gone: Looking at the MR stats answers this question beyond doubt. Nuff said...

In reply to Sean Kelly:

I'd say it was horses for courses. What I've found is that a decent tread on the sole is more important than whether it has ankle support.

In reply to Gone:

I guess it's the generally accepted best practice and works fine as advice because anyone experienced enough to disagree (for themselves) will just go with what they prefer, although I see what you mean about putting people off but I don't think it would be a very big effect.

I have learnt through experience and later was advised by a consultant (as a result of a condition affecting my joints) to avoid wearing footwear that restricted the movement of my ankles and that yes, it's likely my observation that I seem to fall over a lot more when wearing 'ankle supporting' boots is correct.

I only wear boots that restrict movement for winter. I do not like it when people criticise for wearing shoes.

In reply to Gone:
It's too general to say you should wear boots - loads of factors to consider:

How often do you go out on the hill? If you're use to regular mountain walking or fell running you're going to have stronger ankles than someone who only goes once a year

How much weight will you be carrying? A full winter climbing rack or lightweight daysack with just a few snacks, etc

What's your body build - are you a lightweight skipper or a thick-set plodder?

In reply to Gone:

Boots if its wet, I've got a pack on or I'm going scrambling.

Approach shoes for all else, especially if it's just climbing I'm doing, they're easier for the descent and lighter.

In reply to Gone: Just thought I'd say, from personal experience, I always prefer lightweight footwear as I'm pretty nimble and agile(for someone who's 16st) and like to hop and bounce around alot. I've never liked walking in boots, always preferred trainer style shoes. I went down like a sack of **** in the hills recently with an eighty pound pack. I'm sure the only reason I had a sprained ankle rather than a broken one was down to the support of the boots I had opted for, knowing I'd be carrying such a heavy load. I could feel the support holding my ankle in place until the grip of the boot gave, rather than my ankle, guess what I'm sticking to from now on.