In article ,
says...

Rod Speed wrote:

Why the thin inner pair, what advantage is there with those ?

To keep friction off the skin. I used to do so, too.

I used to many years ago (both pairs pure wool) but nowadays walking-
boot sock technology produces superior no-friction sweat-wicking socks
which do the job with one pair. Available in outdoor-sports shops..

Janet.

On 01/08/2015 09:03, Graham Seed wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote

Still can't understand that, why don't you get friction from them ?

Not something I understand either, being a single sock man. My gnarly
feet get few blisters these days yet double socked youngsters doing
their D of E have some evil looking ones. I suppose it must reduce
friction as the outer sock will rub on the inner and the inner will rub
on the foot less, but it doesn't stop it.


I used to be a fully paid up member of the two pairs of socks brigade
(which was received wisdom back in the 50s and 60s) and occasionally had
some really nasty blisters on long walks for no apparent reason.Since
switching to a single pair I have not been troubled by blisters and I am
sure that wasn't just because I was walking less and less. Blisters
should be much more of a problem if you only venture out once a blue moon.

--
Roger Chapman

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 12:48:42 +0100, Roger Chapman wrote:

Blisters should be much more of a problem if you only venture out
once a blue moon.

Blue moon was last night (31st July).

In uk.d-i-y Roger Chapman wrote:
On 01/08/2015 09:03, Graham Seed wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote

Still can't understand that, why don't you get friction from them ?

Not something I understand either, being a single sock man. My gnarly
feet get few blisters these days yet double socked youngsters doing
their D of E have some evil looking ones. I suppose it must reduce
friction as the outer sock will rub on the inner and the inner will rub
on the foot less, but it doesn't stop it.


I used to be a fully paid up member of the two pairs of socks brigade
(which was received wisdom back in the 50s and 60s) and occasionally had
some really nasty blisters on long walks for no apparent reason.Since
switching to a single pair I have not been troubled by blisters and I am
sure that wasn't just because I was walking less and less. Blisters
should be much more of a problem if you only venture out once a blue moon.

Sandals and bare feet, no socks. It's what Dr Barbara Moore used way
back when.

--
Chris Green
·

wrote in message ...
In uk.d-i-y Roger Chapman wrote:
On 01/08/2015 09:03, Graham Seed wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote

Still can't understand that, why don't you get friction from them ?

Not something I understand either, being a single sock man. My gnarly
feet get few blisters these days yet double socked youngsters doing
their D of E have some evil looking ones. I suppose it must reduce
friction as the outer sock will rub on the inner and the inner will rub
on the foot less, but it doesn't stop it.


I used to be a fully paid up member of the two pairs of socks brigade
(which was received wisdom back in the 50s and 60s) and occasionally had
some really nasty blisters on long walks for no apparent reason.Since
switching to a single pair I have not been troubled by blisters and I am
sure that wasn't just because I was walking less and less. Blisters
should be much more of a problem if you only venture out once a blue
moon.

Sandals and bare feet, no socks. It's what Dr Barbara Moore used way
back when.

I used to wear thongs, what you lot call flip flops, no sox.

Proper boots with decent thick wool/nylon mix sox leave that for dead.

Don’t get blisters with either.

On 01/08/2015 18:39, wrote:
Sandals and bare feet, no socks. It's what Dr Barbara Moore used way
back when.

I can walk further with boots and socks. Heck, even the Romans used
socks in their caligae.

Andy