Yes, but in my experience the quality of your socks matters much more. A single wrinkle is gonna give you a nice blister within 5km. Get nice socks and pack blister bandages. Those things are like magic.
As an anecdote, I stopped buying "normal" socks from regular clothing stores completely.
All I wear is hiking labeled socks from sports stores. Greatly reduces wrinkles even if you go for the cheap ones. (Decathlon's store brand for example, but that's EU only i think).
From my adjacent experience (ultrarunning / multi-day races), after trying a bunch of different brands, I've settled on Drymax. By far the best blister resistance! They're really good at keeping feet, well, dry, which helps a lot against chafing.
If you have particular hot spots, I'd also recommend applying some foot cream like Trail Toes. I always use it for runs over ~30km.
Socks with a high percentage of wool are amazing if you've got even remotely sweaty feet. You can be having a complete swamp in your shoes and still have warm feet.
When I (not parent) went to the Camino de Santiago, I was already an experienced hiker (I could certainly walk 30kms in a day and I had done it many times) and I brought a good pair of shoes with me (that I used before without getting any blisters).
But my feet were just not ready to take 30km per day for many, many days in a row. It's one thing to do it just during weekends, doing it every day is a different beast.
Eventually it got better, but it took a while for me to get used to it (and a whole lot of Compeed plasters).
My advice for anyone who is going, would be to start gradually (maybe 10-15 km/day) and then over time go for longer and longer walks.
Edit: I totally agree with the sibling comment about socks being just as important, if not more, than shoes
This was something I heard very often from fellow pilgrims on the camino. That the constant abuse, really is something else. There is a ton of shoe stores along the camino, and plenty of people that "just have to wait a bit" for their feet to catch up. I guess both shoes and socks are important; but certainly never do what I did and go to Spain with brand new shoes...
Absolutely. Not only the size, but the general shape and the technologies of the shoe. For walking/running (not hiking as the parent post is discussing) I like the Ultra Boost line of shoes with their "torsion system", breathable knit upper material, and lightweight foam outer sole. Comfiest shoes I own.
I'm going to go against the grain here but probably not. I walked 500+ km (300 miles) on the Camino Del Norte in a pair of 20£ under armour running shoes I bought 3 years ago. I only had one blister that went away when I put a blister plaster on it.
I think in my experience the size of the shoe matters hugely, more than the quality. Slightly too loose or slightly too tight will lead to blisters if you do an unusual (for you) amount of walking.
A colleague of mine expressed he is in depression to manager, he told that he cannot do anything and asked to take time off.
I'm in similar situation, was very physically fit but was injured in gym (tfcc tear) now I'm still recovering lost the urge to even getup from the bed. I feel like I'm slipping in depression, but I'm fighting for it.
So I have decided to get a complete blood test done. Getup early in the morning and start working out.
But I still need to drive enough motivation to spend quality time on the work and get my professional/hobby done. Most of the time I will slip into watching videos on YouTube.
Tried pomodoro technique, but didn't succeed, don't know where I will endup with all this. Hope one day I will reach best of myself.
Sorry to say this, it still sucks on mac.
For ex: If I press `click to go back` it still shows the same page, if I click again it will directly jump to last but one page.
I know that issue, it happens when I use a Google site like YouTube where they decided to break the browser UI's functionality and badly implement it themselves. So the back button sometimes doesn't work when the site's JS encounters a bug, you can't stop loading because YT does everything without reloading the page etc.
No, all your eating happens in that 10 hour window. You fast for at least 14 hours per day. Easy enough if you eat an early dinner and don't snack after.
This seems like one of the things that makes it hard to test intermittent fasting: there are a bunch of variables other than just the length of the window.
If it's a 10 hour window presumably most people are eating multiple meals, but it's not really underspecified since you can eat whenever you want during that time.
There are other people doing 4 hour windows for IF in which case it's more like a single meal, but that's not what this study tested.
(This is just explaining the idea, not advocating IF)
