UKC

Ankle Support- Scarpa Zodiac / mid-height footwear

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 gwared 29 May 2017

Has anyone had a play with the new(ish) Zodiac mid/tech approach boots?

I tried them on and remember thinking there wasn't really any ankle support and that, because the heel is quite narrow and tall, once your ankle started to roll it'd be hard to stop it. Anticipated a few injuries to be honest!

I'm trying to replace my done Quest 4Ds with something more "mountainy" and better suited for scrambles and easy climbs, but still fine for general hillwalking. And to remove the temptation to buy a separate pair of approach trainers as well. But I have to say, as much as I've never really liked the Quests, they are extremely supportive in the ankle and I've never went over in them.

Other considerations are the Salewa Mtn mid trainer, Sportiva TX4 mid, Asplo Jumbla GV (if I could update find them) ...stuff like that.

As always, thanks folks.
Post edited at 07:56
In reply to gwared:

My Scarpa Charmoz are rubbish at ankle support. Great at everything else but just don't really hold my ankles so well. Made me wonder if I had super skinny weak non-mountaineers ankles or something.
In reply to gwared:

Ah. The old ankle support myth

Short of ski boots, no boot "supports" the ankle in the way that most people seem to think.
 cragtyke 29 May 2017
In reply to gwared:

I got a pair of Jumbla's off a guy on ebay few months ago, who's got a couple more new pairs for sale, (search for asolo hiking boots) , sizing is a little long and narrow, the tread pattern isn't very deep so not much good for mud, but they feel great on rock. Ankle support is moderate I'd say.
OP gwared 29 May 2017
In reply to 9WS9c3jps92HFTEp:

I haven't ever tried ski boots on, so I can only imagine. However, I don't mind too much walking in B3's and some boots do offer more stability than others. I know from my own experience that my Quests make it almost impossible to go over on my ankle, mobility suffers a bit I guess, but as they're hiking boots it doesn't really matter. The support they provide is something I've come to appreciate.

I usually use some trail runners for hot weather holiday type hikes, and they're really stable but that's due to their low drop and wide sole at the rear.

I guess another way to ask the question is: how many wander about in mid height "freedom of movement-y" mountain boots (like the ones mentioned above) and survive with ankles unscathed?
OP gwared 29 May 2017
In reply to cragtyke:

Long and narrow is why I like Asolo's. I've had a look about for them but just can't find them anywhere (including that auction site).
 thlcr1 29 May 2017
In reply to gwared:

One of my mates has got a pair of zodiac mid's. He seems to be able to walk most places without any ankle problems. I personally have got a pair of zodiac low's, so no ankle support at all. Find them fine for most mountain walking and great for scrambling. Personally I don't have a problem using shoes for that sort of use, and have used a few approach shoes in that way over the years. Love the freedom of movement and so far have never had an ankle injury. Hope that's not famous last words!

Lee
In reply to 9WS9c3jps92HFTEp:

You mean to say, you've never had a pair of hiking boots that supported your ankle? ie reduced flex in the joint to prevent rolling on uneven terrain? Pretty sure that's what most people expect from them and what most people get...
2
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:
I wear trail shoes and allow my ankles to do their job ie roll and flex in order to protect my knees. I only wear boots (when I need to fit crampons or if very wet) occasionally

Most boots will reduce/restrict the movement of the ankle and therefore limiting their shock absorbing ability in turn transferring the force to the knees which in turn will cause its own issues. However, there is a big difference between limiting ankle mobility and providing tangible additional support which is where a lot of people get confused.

There are many studies on this and the height of the boot required to offer any significant support is higher than the majority of walking boots on the market. Mid calf was the height if I remember rightly (but I would need to check this)

Boots or trail shoes are a personal choice and not one that I am keen to impose my views on people, however I do think it is important that people understand the pros and cons of both and the whole "boots give ankle support" is somewhat questionable at best and on top of that, suggesting that this reduced ankle flexibility is even a good thing is something else all together.

There will be many that disagree with me and that is fine

I wrote this a few years ago http://gwilymstarks.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/boots-or-not.html there are a few useful links on this blog post
Post edited at 13:47
2
In reply to 9WS9c3jps92HFTEp:

Considering how many times my ankle has begun to roll and been caught by the support of the boot, I can't say I see the benefit of the less is more approach. A hiking boot isn't rigid plastic like a ski boot, it flexes and absorbs the roll. From the amount of friends I have with screwed up knees from skiing I think we can safely say ski boots are ankle protectors and knee destroyers. Ski boots give you power/control at a cost. Hiking boots on the other hand give you comfort/support, if anything their 'lack' of support is what makes them ideal.
1
Removed User 29 May 2017
In reply to gwared:

I've got a pair. My ankles are somewhat damaged and mid height boots help. Without them I'm constantly 'turning' my ankles. One point to consider. The sole unit has been much better on damp ground and slippery rock; but it doesn't seem to have lasted anywhere as long as my previous Sportiva Ganda Guides. Perhaps its a softer compound. They can be resoled but have to go back to Italy; so that's £80 + P&P.
These ones have done approaches, climbed reasonably happily up to F6a and as the mid sole is quite stiff they're comfortable on Via Ferattas.
 Timmd 29 May 2017
In reply to 9WS9c3jps92HFTEp:
> Ah. The old ankle support mythShort of ski boots, no boot "supports" the ankle in the way that most people seem to think.

I wouldn't know how most people seem to think, but lacing my Meindl boot up extra tight the day after I went over on it the day before (with it too loosely laced when running down a rocky path), definitely did support it.


Post edited at 17:45
 Timmd 29 May 2017
In reply to 9WS9c3jps92HFTEp:
Do you think there may be a risk of seeing things in a polarised way, when there may be degrees of ankle support available from walking boots - being much less than ski boots but more than trail shoes?

'I wear trail shoes and allow my ankles to do their job ie roll and flex in order to protect my knees. I only wear boots (when I need to fit crampons or if very wet) occasionally'

That you say trail shoes allow them to roll and flex, seems to suggest you know that trail shoes don't restrict ankle mobility like some walking boots can - with the inverse of mobility being support, I would tentatively suggest.
Post edited at 17:46
In reply to Timmd:

I fully accept that boots restrict ankle movement as per my original post. But this does not nevessarily lead to support. I am merely pointing out that the automatic assumption from lots of people is that trail shoes offer no support and all boots offer ankle support and that is a good thing is a little flawed. There is a sliding scale as you suggest

However, a number of studies show no difference between shoes and boots for stability or reduction of injury.

It is an interesting topic as is challenging long ingrained beliefs.

I think there is a psychological aspect as well here. A bit like helmets where people take risks wearing helmet that they wouldn't take without on.

Sometimes people feel they can take greater risks in boots because of the perceived additional support and maybe that is the reason for them as confidence in placing feet is very important in the whole stability issue
1
 Timmd 29 May 2017
In reply to 9WS9c3jps92HFTEp:
Thanks, that sounds interesting about the reduction of injuries, I'll look into it. I might go and do some ankle twisting type balancing in my garden and see what happens - how the differences feel between my boots and trainers. It makes sense that trail shoes would help to keep ankle stronger, and not send 'wear & tear' through to the knees like boots may do.

It (possibly subjectively) feels like it's right at the far end of ankle rotation where boots help to stop me from twisting my ankles. I think I've twisted mine more often as an adult when not wearing boots.
Post edited at 20:31
 damowilk 29 May 2017
In reply to 9WS9c3jps92HFTEp:

A small far as I'm aware, when last I looked into it, the degree of ankle support from a higher or stiffer boot doesn't reduce the incidence of ankle sprains and fractures. If anyone has any contrary evidence (ie not anecdote) I'd genuinely be grateful to be corrected.
It doesn't actually require much distance of movement of the ankle for a fracture.

I think it's better to gradually improve lateral strength of ankles, either by hiking etc, or specific exercises like balance boards, than reliance on boot support.
OP gwared 30 May 2017
In reply to Timmd:

I've had a go at this! My trail runners are really stable, as I mentioned before I believe that's due to their really low rise and flared rear sole. It keeps your actual foot sole closer to the ground that boots do. It is actually quite hard to get them to go past the 'tipping point' when trying to simulate an ankle roll. Of course once they go there's no support.

The Quests are also wide at the back, and due to the high lacing it's actually really difficult for me to roll my ankle far enough to cause serious injury (caveat: I know this won't be the same when you've battering downhill with a heavy pack on).

The winter boots are, obviously, a step up again.

When I've tried on any of these mid height boots they feel a bit like walking in high heels (I imagine...). They have the looks of mountain boots, but they usually don't have locking eyelets that are very 'deep' around the side of the shoe, and as they're mid-height the lacing doesn't go high enough to offer any real support. Couple that with the Zodiacs and Mtn trainers having stiffish soles and I just thought they might be a bit more likely to be unstable.

In saying that there's been some good words of encouragement for these types of boots on the thread. Should maybe trust that manufacturers have tested and thought about this before releasing a product, when do they ever get it wrong
OP gwared 30 May 2017
In reply to Removed User:

That's good to know, thanks for your input. I'm surprised about the sole wearing out so fast, I'd just assumed they'd be more boot than climbing orientated. I'm associating fast wearing rubber with being nice and sticky here... but if you can get up 6a in them they must be pretty sticky. Def enough for me.

Ganda guides might have been on the list as well, pity they aren't made anymore.
 cragtyke 30 May 2017
In reply to gwared:

search for "asolo coffee", several pairs on £75.
 Mr. Lee 31 May 2017
In reply to 9WS9c3jps92HFTEp:

> I wear trail shoes and allow my ankles to do their job ie roll and flex in order to protect my knees. I only wear boots (when I need to fit crampons or if very wet) occasionallyMost boots will reduce/restrict the movement of the ankle and therefore limiting their shock absorbing ability in turn transferring the force to the knees which in turn will cause its own issues. However, there is a big difference between limiting ankle mobility and providing tangible additional support which is where a lot of people get confused. There are many studies on this and the height of the boot required to offer any significant support is higher than the majority of walking boots on the market. Mid calf was the height if I remember rightly (but I would need to check this).

For somebody who claims to read studies you seem to be getting confused about some very basic anatomy and biomechanics. Or at least that's how it reads. The ankle (talocrural) joint is a hinge joint which allows the foot to flex and extend. The subtalar joint beneath the talocrural joint moves in all three planes and is the joint primarily involved when people 'roll their ankles'. So it's the subtalar joint that needs stability, not the ankle joint in such cases. Blocking the ankle joint itself can impact on the knees but that's not the same thing as providing lateral stability to the subtalar joint, which is what the OP was referring to. There's a simple paper here that concludes this (see last line of the abstract).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20541206

I've fitted numerous boots to patients to aid stability around the subtalar joint. I've no doubt that the right pair of boots can improve lateral stability here versus shoes. It's obviously prescribed footwear, which is not the same as regular footwear but the principle remains, just to a lesser extent.
1
Removed User 31 May 2017
In reply to gwared:

I was very unimpressed with the sole units on my Gandas. As a boot it gave a supportive fit and was well put together; but as soon as it got a bit damp or loose it became a bit sketchy. I think the rubber was a bit too hard, which gave good 'climbing' performance (nice selling point) but compromised grip. If you can get them I remember being happy with my Garmont Vettas.
 BruceM 31 May 2017
"I believe that's due to their really low rise and flared rear sole. It keeps your actual foot sole closer to the ground that boots do."

This seems to be key! Problem with many modern boots and approach shoes is the obsession with a narrow and high heel. Original 5.10 Tennies are so stable. We need boots like that. Only then can you give up on the classic bound up ankle idea.

Studies of populations are not that useful when considering a particular individual with their personal physiology and history.

My girl has spent the last 3 months and ongoing rehabbing a badly screwed ankle from Sportiva TX4s. Not nice at all. Life is short. TX4 is a nice scrambler, but again narrow highish heel.

Scarpa approach shoes (in particular) also seem to have a narrow heel, and not a particularly supportive ankle.

I now build my own hybrid shoes from bits of new shoes (expensive) - due to a related heel problem - but I'm yet to really nail a good stable base shoe to start with.

I'm leaning towards starting with a flat "skate shoe" type thing and attaching a more rugged sole. At this stage that seems the best way forward.

Good health to everybody!
 rgold 31 May 2017
In reply to gwared:

I think it is really hard to discern clear-cut advantages either way. Personally, over a period of more than 30 years, I've continually "downsized" my footwear, to the point that approach shoes or trail-runners are all I wear unless I need something that will hold proper crampons or kick steps up long snowfields. I haven't conceptualized it in terms of "support" so much as agility. When I am quick on my feet---that little dance you do after a minor trip can have a lot to do with whether or not you hurt yourself--- and can easily flex laterally at the ankle to accommodate sloping foot placements, I feel I am far less likely to roll an ankle. In other words, the agility afforded by light unrestrictive footwear helps me avoid ankle-rolling situations and so is better than support for after-the-fact events that wouldn't have occurred with lighter shoes.
 timjones 01 Jun 2017
In reply to gwared:

> Has anyone had a play with the new(ish) Zodiac mid/tech approach boots? I tried them on and remember thinking there wasn't really any ankle support and that, because the heel is quite narrow and tall, once your ankle started to roll it'd be hard to stop it. Anticipated a few injuries to be honest! I'm trying to replace my done Quest 4Ds with something more "mountainy" and better suited for scrambles and easy climbs, but still fine for general hillwalking. And to remove the temptation to buy a separate pair of approach trainers as well. But I have to say, as much as I've never really liked the Quests, they are extremely supportive in the ankle and I've never went over in them. Other considerations are the Salewa Mtn mid trainer, Sportiva TX4 mid, Asplo Jumbla GV (if I could update find them) ...stuff like that.As always, thanks folks.

I haven't tried any mid-height footwear for years.


Due to a break in the past I have to look after my right ankle pretty carefully and I find the mid height compromise doesn't tick any boxes for me. I tend to assess the ground and the load that I am carrying and choose either approach shoes that allow my ankles to do their job unhindered or full boots to protect the ankles.

As time goes by I find myself spending more and more time in approach shoes with the boots only coming out on wet, boggy approaches.
 oldie 06 Jun 2017
In reply to gwared:

Does anyone have any experience of wearing separate ankle supports with shoes/boots?
There area wide variety of these on the market which might extend the range of use say of a light shoe or might be put on just for descents.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...