Gear review - In praise of Meindl boots

I recall once seeing an anatomy diagram of the foot and thinking that there was an awful lot of complexity going on down there, until that point I knew a foot consisted of 5 toes, sole, heel and an ankle joint and an achilles tendon courtesy of Homer. A school saturday job working in a shoe shop and I became aware of just how diverse feet can be; the surprising difference between feet attached to the same body; the variety in a population; why there's a very good reason for laces and how people will endure agony to wear the latest fashion brand/style.

http://www.aireurbano.com/foot-anatomy-diagram-tendons/foot-anatomy-diagram-tendons/

From my mechanical engineering perspective, the human foot is a tour de force of biomechanics and anything that complex needs a detailed set of operating instructions, to ensure trouble free operation over its intended design life. Sadly, there are no operating instructions. Faced with this problem an engineer would consider the best approach would be to design a device affording suitable protection and support.

http://www.healthandcare.co.uk/
Physio boot for stabilising foot

I learnt the expensive way, that buying the heavily marketed and celebrity endorsed brand of walking boot might deliver short term comfort and safety, it didn't necessarily equate with durability. Finally I received an unsolicited recommendation to try Meindl Borneo Pro MFS  boots from someone who knows these things, hard wearing, comfortable and some sage advice on boot TLC. 10 years ago I bought my first pair, they are still worn for walking in the woods, the treads worn too far down for the hills, but not worn enough to send for resoling. A 2nd pair were bought 4 years ago for hill duty. What can I say, except they've provided exemplary service from the peat bogs and heather bashing in Wales to pounding talus in the Cuillin's and through the quartzite block fields of the NW Highlands. Though not stated as a winter boot, they're still stiff enough for C1 crampons. The leather boots have been regularly cleaned and waxed keeping my feet dry, except when I've immersed them into water too deep for the Borneo height. A top tip is to wear Merino wool socks washed in natural soap to maintain the wool loft, even when wet, wool will keep feet warm, a better tip is to carry a spare pair of merino wool socks to change into, it's surprising how a wetted Borneo boot still feels OK, emptied out and a dry pair of socks worn. Those who have worn a boot for any length of time know that you can move across the landscape without staring fixedly on the ground you are about to step on, a quick glance suffices and the feet 'sense' or 'feel' their way, the Borneos have acted like a 6th sense. You do need strong walking pole(s) to accomplish this feat safely, as occasionally the feet will be deceived and the walking pole(s) will prevent you planting your face on terra firma. The Borneo soles are just stiff enough to angle up or contour short sections of steep hill slopes and high enough to 'wade' through 5" depth of water/bog. What's not to like?

http://www.aireurbano.com/diagram-of-the-foot-tendons/

Well, in more entertaining and rough terrain - wide expanses of tussocky grass, vegetated boulder fields, relict stream beds, morainic debris, contouring for extended sections of steep hill slopes, my feet were suggesting that 1. I needed to take more interest in map symbols and contour lines and 2. boot soles really needed to be stiffer for rougher terrain. For a few years I'd noted better performing footwear worn by those whose job demands they traverse rough ground. It wasn't quite a case of 'monkey see, monkey want', but on my wanders and when opportunity arose, I'd stop and chat to gamekeepers and stalkers, about this and that. I'd also make a point of enquiring on the performance of their outdoor footwear and the same names cropped up. As one stalker wryly noted about the job, you need 'good boots and a good bed. If you're not in one, you are in the other'. Even hardened to the prices of boots, I'll confess to sticker shock.

Meindl Dovre Extreme GTX
http://www.meindl.co.uk/products/dovre-extreme-gtx

A trip to Norway, inside the Artic Circle in September 2014 finally settled matters, walking over snow blanketed terrain and in the space of 2 days, I turned the same foot on the sides of hidden rocks 3 times, painful, but not serious, but a warning. The Norwegian hunting season was in full swing and hunters were conspicuous by wearing high visibility bibs over their camouflage gear, I'm guessing hi viz attire was the result of an incident involving the words 'misidentification, fatal, shooting, accident'. All the hunters were wearing the same boot style as the Welsh gamekeepers and Scottish stalkers. Back in the UK, desensitised to the sticker shock, and having established with Meindl that I could extrapolate the fit of the Borneo to the Dovre Extreme GTX boots, I ordered a pair.

Meindl Borneo and Dovre boots 2005 to present 

Putting on the new Dovre's and I was reminded of AA Milne's words “When you see someone putting on his Big Boots, you can be pretty sure that an Adventure is going to happen”. Size 11 boots weigh north of 2 kg, some low level, low gradient walks soon recalibrated the legs and I can't say I've noticed the weight or any fatigue, the Dovre's do feel good on the feet though. But then I'm not running, more a case of ambling along, taking in the views and noting the flora/fauna in the way. The increased height of the Dovre means a deeper depth of water can be crossed dry shod and there have been a few swollen 'allts' and 'nants' where I have crossed dry shod wearing the Dovres and would have had to empty the Borneos. So far the boots have met all expectations in walking over snow, slush, wet bog, quartzite block fields, morainic debris, contouring steep wet/snow mantled slopes and I'll update this review some time in the future for durability etc.

Update : a new post on Meindl boots July 2016

'One pound on your foot is equivalent to five pounds on your back' Really?

Rough bounds of Moidart

Read anything on outdoor walking footwear and sooner or later you'll come across the mantra 'One pound on your foot is equivalent to five pounds on your back' and usually associated with the review of fabric boots or latterly trail shoes and adjectives including awesomeness and amazing. Coincidentally reading the blogs and posts by light footwear advocates, I'm aware of the attrition rate of foot injuries and ailments. Google : plantar fasciitis, achilles tendinitis, metatarsalgia ...

So is there any science behind the statement of increased footwear weight equivalent to increased backpack weight? There is indeed. A study report published in 1983 by the US Army Research Institute Environmental Medicine, titled "The energy cost and heart-rate response of trained and untrained subjects walking and running in shoes and boots" Bruce H. Jones, Michael M. Toner, William L. Daniels and Joseph J. Knapik.

It is an often cited report by advocates of light footwear, less so the actual summary and almost never the results or discussion.

The summary reads :
To determine the difference in the energy cost of walking and running in a lightweight athletic shoe and a heavier boot, fourteen male subjects (6 trained and 8 untrained) had their oxygen uptake (V O2) measured while walking and running on a treadmill. They wore each type of footwear, athletic shoes of the subjects' choice (average weight per pair = 616g), and leather military boots (average weight per pair = 1776g) at 3 walking speeds (4.0, 5.6 and 7.3 km ° h-I) and 3 running speeds (8.9 10.5 and 12.1 km h 1 ). The trials for running were repeated at the same three speeds with the subjects wearing shoes and these shoes plus lead weights. The weight of the shoes plus the lead weights was equal to the weight of the subjects' boots. The VO 2 values with boots were significantly (p< .05) higher (5.9 to 10.2 percent) at all speeds, except the slowest walk, 4.0 km/hr. Also, O2 with shoes plus lead weights were significantly (p < .05) higher than shoes alone. Weight alone appeared to account for 48-70% of the added energy cost of wearing boots. The relative energy cost (Va02, ml * kg - I min - ) of trained and untrained subjects were the same at all speeds, but heart rates for the untrained were significantly higher (p<.05) in both shoes and boots except at the slowest walking speed (4.0 km/hr ). These data indicate that energy expenditure is increased by wearing boots. A large portion of this increase may be attributed to weight of footwear. In addition, the increased energy cost of locomotion with boots appears to place a limiting stress on untrained subjects.

And in the discussion

"HR (heart rate) during boot trials were higher than shoe trials at all speeds except the slowest walk, 4.0 km/hr"
"The data from this study indicate that for an increment of weigh:.equal to 1.4% of body weight carried on the feet the average energy cost increased 8% or 5.7 times what one would have expected for the same weight carried on the torso (Soule and Goldman 1969). Most importantly, the energy cost is significantly increased by wearing boots rather than shoes for walking and running at speeds above 4.0 km / hr"

OK, but what about the ladies?

Ergonomics. Volume 29, Issue 3, 1986
The energy cost of women walking and running in shoes and boots. B H. Jones, J J. Knapik, W L. Daniels and M M. Toner

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the difference in energy cost for women walking and running in shoes versus heavier boots. Seven subjects wore athletic shoes (mean weight = 514 ± 50g) and leather military boots (mean weight = 1371 ± 104g) at three walking speeds (4·0, 5·6 and 7·3km/hour) and two running speeds (8.9 and 10·5 km/hour). During each walking and running trial oxygen uptake ([Vdot]O2 ml kg−1 min−1) was measured. The [Vdot]O2 for women wearing boots were significantly higher (P < 0·05) than for shoes for both walking and running, with the exception of the slowest walking speed. The average increment in energy cost was 1·0% per 100-g increase in weight per pair of footwear. These results are similar to those reported for men from other studies which found increments in energy cost of 0·7 to 0·9% per 100-g increase in weight of footwear.

A vast expanse of wet peat bog and tussocks, Cambrian Mountains

The science points to 4.0 Km/hr as the point at which lighter footwear is significantly better for men and women, walking and running on a treadmill.  Strangely enough you don't read anywhere that there's an insignificant difference between light and heavy footwear below a walking speed of 4km/hr.  4.0 Km/hr (~2.48 mph) is a walking speed that in my opinion is an aspirational a very respectable speed for a landscape photographer in the hills, laden with the hill kit and photography gear. Throw in the wild camping kit and food, and 4 km/hr is probably only exceeded on a gentle descent with the car in sight. Come to think of it, for a 7 hours hill walking trip, with an hour for stops, that's a walk of 24 km at a sustained pace of 4 km/hr, I would speculate that there's a high percentage of hill walkers who walk at speeds less than 4 km/hr and/or stop for far longer than an hour. Walkers and backpackers maintaining walking/running speeds greater than 4 km/hr, could make an empirical and justified scientific case for lightweight footwear, for everyone else it seems dubious if 'one pound on your foot is 5 pounds on your back' actually applies, as the research data inconveniently point out the human body's biomechanics of leg muscles and tendons have an inherent energy tolerance threshold for footwear weight, that threshold is reached at a walking speed of 4 km/hr.

'one pound on your foot is 5 pounds on your back' is a memorable line though. Put 5 lb of weight into a backpack and lift it, yup you can feel it. It doesn't take a genius to work out that a pound of weight on the other foot is another 5 lbs of weight on your back, 10 lbs in total!  Pick up a pair of heavy boots and lighter boots, you can also discern the weight there too. It is odd though that when you put the heavy boots on your feet and walk around you soon forget the weight, the fit and comfort are more apparent and light boots when new are generally less stiff and 'comforting' than new heavy boots.

I can't find any research for temperatures/climate where breathability of the boot and its physiological effect is measured, but in hot conditions there's good empirical evidence to indicate a fabric allows better breathability and 'cooler' feet and are much preferable to 'hot' feet or better still even wear sandals.

Heather bashing on the Moelwyns

So away from people on the internet advocating light footwear for hill walking, what do people who actually work outdoors wear on their feet? Actually there's not that many professions requiring sustained exposure to hill terrain and elements day after day. Of those professions left, it has been my good fortune to meet gamekeepers and stalkers, in the hills and have a 'wee blether' about the land and weather, I've also taken the opportunity to enquire about clothing and footwear worn day in, day out on the hills and moor in all weather, contouring the slopes below ridge lines whilst stalking game across terrain that rarely sees walkers who aren't lost. The same boot names came up time and again. The boots aren't fabric and they are heavy, so they are never written about by backpackers and hill walkers, instead I'll write more about these boots in a future post.