Going Barefoot - Hiking and Backpacking

Your pack weighs 2oz and you are in the peak of physical fitness. Why then do you require big heavy boots to compensate for 'weak ankles'? Why not build strong ankles? Why are they weak in the first place?

Over the years I've been using hiking shoes and boots I've basically come to the conclusion that they don't really work!!!! I've not yet managed to do a week or two-week trip without blisters or shoe failure despite using good quality shoes, sensible kit and anti-blister measures. Now I'm equally not mad and don't believe that wearing no shoes at all is a sensible option - although I'm still open to this!!!

In Ultralight Footwear I looked at the basic ideas of why we have shoes- their benefits and limitations. In Ultralight Load Carrying I looked at how bad luggage design and bad load distribution creates big problems for our feet. In addition to this in 2011 I read "Born to Run" and "Barefoot Running Step by Step" plus lots of stuff on the Internet about barefoot running and of course the science about how feet work.

Based on all of this I decided to do some experiments in 2011 and they will continue into 2012. The idea is to explore "Do I NEED shoes?" and "What is the MINIMUM shoe I need?" I've set myself a goal of training to run a cross-country ultra-marathon 'barefoot' at some point in the future. In order to do that I first need to run an ordinary marathon 'barefoot'. I've no idea whether or not I can do this or whether or not it's sensible or what I mean by 'barefoot'.

Personal Strength and Fitness (Feet)

I'm pretty convinced that shoes basically constrict and cripple feet and stop them behaving naturally. You only have to walk around in shoes and feel what your feet are doing or not able to do to understand this. I'm also pretty convinced that feet are a lot tougher and more capable than we've been led to believe. I'm also pretty confident that years of wearing shoes lead to weak feet and poor wiring into the brain.

I've started to work on a program of retraining my feet and brain so that I might walk and (maybe) run more naturally. This is a very gradual thing. 2011 was dedicated to just getting my feet up to some basic strength and fitness levels. I've done this by minimizing the use of shoes (see below) and by changing the type of shoes that I do use.

The first thing that I've done is to throw away my slippers. When I'm in the house I just don't wear shoes. Since I work from home a lot that means I don't wear shoes much. Initially I stubbed a toe or two whilst I learnt to listen to my feet. After that it's all just been fine - I naturally listen to my feet. Over the year my feet have changed shape, bulked up and woken up. You can see in the above picture that my toes are now spreading out and being more limpet-like.

I've also been running very short distances without shoes around the local park. This has been an eye-opener. I'm still learning how to do it in a safe way. It's convinced me that this is what feet do naturally and that blisters and abrasion are not an issue once you learn to listen to your feet and move naturally. I don't know if I could run 26 miles barefoot. I don't know if using various 'barefoot' shoes would count as running barefoot. I do know that my feet have thanked me for going barefoot a lot more.

I do know it's changed how I walk. My natural walking style is heel-striking over most ground but it's a much gentler motion and my body is much more involved in the walking. It's not jarring.

When running - even short distances - it seems natural to use a short stride and a forefoot strike. It looks a lot like a comedy 'flintstones' style of running but it feels wonderful. It feels like this is what feet are built for. So much so that I'm beginning to wonder if humans are in fact runners who walk rather than walkers who can run.

As part of my 2011 experiments I've been using various shoes for day hikes and seeing what works, what doesn't work, what impact the shoes have on my feet and which shoes feel best for my feet.

Shoes vs. Barefoot Shoes vs. Bare feet

In 2011 I've spent most of the year experimenting with footwear. My goal has been to move away from bulky stiff shoes with EVA soles that collapse after a few miles. I've been trying to work out how little shoe I need for hiking and backpacking. I've been trying to work out what I like best and how terrain and weather affect my choices. I've been trying to answer questions such as "Would it be a good idea to go backpacking barefoot?"

Bare Feet

Let's start here. Are bare feet the perfect tool for ultralight backpacking?

After walking around barefoot on various terrains I've learnt enough to maybe answer this question.

In general my feet really love to move without shoes on them. It's as if I'd spent my whole life being deaf and I've finally removed the ear defenders that have been stopping me hearing things. The world changes when your feet can feel the ground underneath. It changes how you interact with and relate to the environment. You learn how much richer terrain is and how much you can feel part of the terrain rather than disconnected from it. When you wear shoes the world feels like shoe wherever you go. When you go barefoot the world feels like the world wherever you go.

But real life is also complicated.

Gravel is uncomfortable and I couldn't today see myself hiking for 20 miles on some of that paths that I've used. Others might be just fine but not all. Many trails these days are just like pavements or stone tracks or smooth park tracks - it's not really off-road at all. But in the wild are lots of small biting ticks and things and giving these guys an easy in might not be a good idea.

Bare feet are also really bad on some terrains. Greasy and muddy surfaces can be lethal. Feet do not have cleats and any grip you can get is through skin friction or through toes and feet wrapping themselves around the various micro-features of the terrain. Mud on a smooth surface or damp tiles provide no such help. A wet grassy bank can also be deadly.

So feet are not the perfect multi-day all-terrain solution for wet climates. In dry climates they are awesome but I don't live in one of those. Barefoot in the summer is great but in the winter not so great.

Vibram Five Fingers KSO (324g)

These are shoes. They may look quite like feet but trust me they are shoes. If you are in any doubt about this then try walking over a rough surface in bare feet and then over the same surface in these.

With that being said they are also very good shoes. They are very flexible and have no heel. They let my feet behave naturally - adapting to the ground. They let my feet grip the ground in a naturalish way. If I go scrambling in them then my feet and toes can wrap around rocks and lips quite nicely. They are low cut at the heel and so your Achilles tendon is free to move any way that it wants.

At the maximum sole thickness is 3.5mm and so there is a small bit of give built in to them. Like many people I prefer them when they've worn for a few hundred miles and there's a lot less give in them.

The soles are quite grippy generally and have razor-cut grooves which do a great job gripping most surfaces. Of course, like feet they are pretty lousy on wet grassy banks and on mud-covered smooth surfaces or leaf mulch on concrete.

In wet conditions your feet will become wet almost instantly - hardly a surprise given that the tops are basically just lycra.

I could easily see myself using them as a running shoe. I have great difficulty in thinking of them as a shoe I'd use for a two week backpacking trip.

However what I have found this year is that they are in fact my favourite shoe for day walks. I was surprised by this but providing the ground is not very wet these are the shoes I prefer. I love the way they allow my foot to behave naturally. I love the extra feedback I get from the ground.

I have used them as a general about-town shoe and an office shoe. In the office people notice, about town people tend not to notice. This version is all black and since people expect to see shoes on your feet they don't tend to notice that this shoe has toes.

Overall then I think they are great for general use but not suited for much winter use or multi-day hikes. Of course, after another year of training barefoot I may well change my mind on this.

Merrell Barefoot Trail Glove (389g)

The marketing hype behind these say that they are a barefoot shoe. Well they are definitely a shoe. They are also more shoe-like than the Vibram KSOs. They are also a lot less shoe-like than most shoes. This includes the fact that they are cut very low at the back so that your Achilles tendon is free to do its thing.

It is fair to say they are a radical design in shoe terms. It's also fair to say they are probably the best (although slightly flawed) shoe I've ever bought.

In construction terms there is a flexible sole which has no heel to it. They are very flexible - like moccasins rather than trainers. The sole is 4mm Eva pads. It is clearly stiffer and more padded than the Vibram Five Fingers KSOs but it is a lot less padded than any other hiking or running shoe you are going to buy.

Internally the shoe has no Insole. Instead the footbed and the sole and the upper all work together to create an internal space that is seam-free. There is nothing here that can collapse, shrink or move around. It is a work of genius. So much so that you wonder "Why can't all shoes be like this?" It's one of the few shoes that I've looked at where I've thought "This shoe is designed to be used without socks" and "This shoe would be fine for extended use".

The sole of the shoe is flat with no heel lift. The sole of the shoe also roughly follows the contours of the foot. There is no arch support or padded area. Instead the sole and side of the foot contour around your foot arch. Rather than filling the gap with padding they've fitted the shoe to the shape of your foot. A foot arch doesn't need support if it's allowed to do its job.

Finally the lacing system is unlike anything I've seen before and it is just brilliant.

The lacing system is in two parts. You have a standard shoe-lace that's been around for thousands of years. However instead of feeding it through eyelets what they've done is feed it through other laces. The grey stripes on the shoe are actually U shaped loops which have been machined onto the tongue of the shoe and then these are threaded through eyelets placed slightly lower down the shoe than you'd normally expect.

The lacing system is designed so that each individual lacing loop is adjustable almost independently of the others - once this shoe is laced for comfort it stays comfortable.

The biggest effect of this lacing system is the way that the shoe is secured to your foot. The shoe locks onto your foot around the arch - a bit like an old fashioned boxing glove. What this means is that the shoe moves WITH your foot in the same way as a good glove does. When you are on rough or uneven terrain you will find that your foot and shoe still move as one - you will not have the odd shoe sensation of feet and shoes moving independently. In this way they are most unlucky.

They are not as foot-like as KSOs but they are pretty awesome as a shoe.

The shape of the shoe is different to an ordinary shoe - the toe box is very wide. This gives your toes lots of space to move around in and nothing to rub against. It's very comfortable. With these shoes I find my toes behave reasonably naturally and I don't feel them sliding around within the shoe. Instead I feel them spread out and withdraw as they would if was in the KSOs or not wearing shoes at all.

Merrell are now doing a Gore-Tex version of this shoe which I think will be great for colder and wetter weather for some. These shoes are of course largely mesh and so water just floods in. I'm kinda OK with that but it's not perfect.

The sole is quite grippy but not amazingly so. Most of the time it is just fine. It's generally more grippy than KSOs on slightly muddy terrain but struggles on wet grassy banks and of course on mud-covered smooth surfaces. I think it's a great general-purpose barefoot hiking shoe.

Although they are designed to be worn without socks I tend to wear mine with socks. When I'm not wearing the KSOs I'll be wearing these for hikes.

I feel comfortable that they will be good for multi-day hikes and general terrains. I feel comfortable that they are not going to break down or lead to blisters - there's nothing to wear down. I like them more now that the EVA sole has lost some of its bounce.

Overall I think I will be using these as my backpacking shoe in 2012. I might even use them for running. They are not perfect but for me they are much better than any other hiking shoe I've tried. My only caution is that I know they will be a bit dodgy on some surfaces - every shoe has surfaces it doesn't like.

Merrell Barefoot Tough Glove (411g)

In theory these are just a leather version of the Trail Glove. In reality they are not.

The sole and internal are identical on both shoes. However these have a leather upper. This leather upper has more room in it than the identical size in the Trail Glove. It's more like a shoe than anything so far discussed.

The lacing system is OK but it's not a patch on the lacing system for the Trail Glove. It's better than most shoes but not as good as those. If KSOs are like being shoe-less then the Tough Glove is like wearing a second skin and these are like wearing a good quality pair of shoes.

The leather isn't waterproof and so although they will keep your feet dry for a little longer you can be sure that within half an hour or so of wet weather your feet will be wet.

I wouldn't feel they are great for running in but they are great for other things. They make a good every-day and office shoe. These are the shoes I now wear everyday for general use unless I want something a bit more formal.

For me the benefit of them is that they have no heal or padding and so my feet get to behave more normally.

Salomon Speed Cross 2 (600g)

These are most definitely shoes. They are very light for shoes but they are shoes. Like many running shoes they have 'protection' for the !Achilles tendon. If I'd been wearing them a lot I would have most definitely removed this protection - I really hate to have anything near the Achilles tendon - it just seems to annoy it.....

Originally I bought them as a possibility for hiking because Terra Nova's are too tight for me.

They are a pretty conventional construction with a padded EVA sole, a heal and a footbed insert.

The lacing system is pretty good - a cam locking device grips onto nylon cords.

They feel very much like shoes to me - mushy with my arch feeling support where it doesn't want it and with my toes all crushed together unable to move. In fact after a year spent with minimal time in conventional shoes I'm finding these things are just a bit too narrow for my feet now. They were just fine when I bought them over a year ago....

The one redeeming feature for them is the sole which is simply awesome for cross-country use.

One of my favourite walks is about 10 miles and features a mixture of terrains - trails, rocky stuff, paths, mud and grassy banks. The walk is a good example of everything that I might meet when hiking and a great shoe testing facility. Over the course of a few weeks I've managed to use all of the shoes on this page on the same path in the same weather conditions.

The soles on these shoes out grip anything else on this page when it's very muddy or very wet grass. It's a lot like using blade football boots - you have the same level of confidence. Of course they are much less good around town where it starts to feel like you are walking on stilts.

Alternative 'Barefoot' shoes

The market is pretty good these days. Several manufacturers are doing good things and you can even find articles on the web about making your own 'authentic' barefoot shoes which many find useful.

If you are new to this whole area or don't want to waste money experimenting with things then it might be worth taking a look at Aqua Shoes . You can find these things in many sports shops and surf or boating shops. What they tend to be is lycra or neoprene shoes with a very thin rubber grippy sole on them. They are like water moccasins. You might not want to hike 50 miles in them but they will give you an idea for what your options are. I certainly used them as a starting point and many others do too.

Conclusions - Bare feet, Barefoot or Shoes?

I've been experimenting with this stuff or a year now. I'm convinced that for me it's better to use minimalist footwear. I feel happier when shoes don't have heals and I feel happier. So much so that I've got rid of most of my conventional shoes. I still need conventional shoes for some things - where a particular sole is required such as leather or nonslip court shoes - or dress shoes, but mostly not.

As we start 2012 I'm planning to train for barefoot running (still don't know what I'll mean by that) and continue to use 'barefoot' shoes as much as possible and no shoes where possible. My feet are definitely stronger and happier for being let out of their prisons. I'm definitely walking more lightly than I used to. I've definitely built stronger calves and feet.

Most of all, having minimal shoes helps to bring you back into touch with the ground and help you to feel more alive.

All the shoes on this page are light enough that you don't really notice them. All the shoes on this page have their own strengths and weaknesses. Even feet have strengths and weaknesses.