Gear review - An Update on Meindl boots

Last year I wrote about my experience of Meindl Boots. I also outlined why I have no issue with the weight of leather boots despite the online mantra from lightweight footwear evangelicals of one pound on your foot equates to 5 pounds on your back. Walking boots are clearly a personal choice and one that seems to depend on a number of factors: personality, physiology, philosophical outlook, appetite for comfort, gear durability, preferred walking speed, climate, path quality, terrain traversed ...

A year on from those posts and time for an update.

Boot line up July 2015

Dovre Extreme GTX boots

The boots have met all my of expectations for cool weather comfort, sole rigidity, waterproofness, ankle support etc. The stiffer sole has been a revelation for the ease of traversing across or contouring sloping ground and the band of rand has provided protection to the leather from sharp and abrasive rocks. An extended trip to the NW Highlands in Dec 2015 witnessed 8 days of 'weather' including two named storms and excursions were constrained to saturated often pathless lower elevations in terrain best described as rugged. A wild camping trip in late July and the Dovres were worn as the ground was saturated, streams in spate and temperatures not even reaching double figures. The only problem with the Dovre boots, aside from taking an age to lace up and unlace, is the Gore Tex lining in warmer weather.

Protective rand on Dovre and Engadin boots

The hype of Gore Tex 

My faith in marketing claims for outdoor gear is fairly low, online anecdotes even lower and I prefer to trust opinions of real people I meet on my wanders and my own personal experiences. The Gore Tex lining in the Dovre boots made walking in warmer weather distinctly uncomfortable and unpleasant: hot, sweaty, wet feet. Years ago I discovered the breathability claims of Gore Tex jackets to be risible in the humidity of the British climate and a similar abject performance can now be extended to Gore Tex boot liners.

I have no idea if the Gore Tex lining in the boot has proved durable, as with extremely low expectations of Gore Tex I have kept the leather well waxed to ensure waterproofing.

Engadin Boots

I was suitably impressed with the rigidity of the Meindl BC rated sole and the relative ease of walking across more challenging terrain. I was also conscious that the tread on two older pairs of Borneo's (one pair over a decade old the other getting on for 5 years old) were well worn in comparison with the tread depth on the Dovre boots. I decided a warm weather boot with a stiffer sole would be very desirable.

Screen shot from www.meindl.de

The current Meindl UK website is really poor in conveying information, so a search on Meindl's German website and I eventually found what I wanted a boot named the Engadin:

• Leather boot 
• No Gore Tex lining
• Memory foam system 
• BC rated sole
• Protective rand band
• Air active 
• Vibram multi grip sole

A quick call to my local independent outdoor shop and I enquired that if the Engadin's were the same wide fit as the Borneo and Dovre boots, I would order a pair. They were and I ordered a pair that took a fortnight to arrive from the continent.

So far the Engadin boots have been perfect as a replacement leather boot to the Borneos, with the advantage of the protective rand, stiffer sole and COOL feet again in warmer weather. A recent trip to Scotland was a case in point where both the Dovere and Engadin boots were packed, an unanticipated change from the NW Highlands to the Cairngorms meant only the Engadin's were worn. Warm temperatures, terrain mostly underlain by granite bedrock and geologically young superficial deposits derived from granite, meant the Dovre boots were not required. The Engadine boots were also taken to the NW Highlands in December 2015 and not worn, whilst on a trip to Gairloch/Toridon in October 2015 both boots were worn depending on the temperature and anticipated wetness of terrain.

Ye olde faithful Borneo's

Are still worn for walks in the local woodlands and countryside. A pair is left in the car boot just in case I should forget to pack boots for a trip, once bitten twice shy ...

Boot line up July 2016
From R to L : Engadin, Dovre, Borneo x 2

'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.