Feet & traditional footwear

[radhead]

I've been hearing a lot on the news lately about how going barefoot is actually good for your feet. Even some runners have started doing this.

One reason is because running shoes are thicker at the heel than at the front part of the foot, near the toes. It's more natural when walking barefoot to land with the whole foot, instead of always impacting the heel first. Part of the reason for the thicker heel (I suppose) is that it gives more cushioning and shock resistance. But in doing so, it seems that are adding MORE to the shock impact of the heel as well, which is ironic.

(I've always had my reservations/suspicions about athletic shoes. I mean, how could man even POSSIBLY make a shoe that was better than the bare foot?)

Now I'm wondering, how come all shoes seem to be made that way? Look at any pair of shoes or boots and the heel is thicker than the front. (High heels are even more extreme in this regard.)

All this leaves me wondering, do you think that shoes are going to undertake a revolution in design due to these findings? Are they going to be more even on the soles? Maybe shoes with simpler designs - moccasins, Keds, Converse All-Star, Vans, etc, are going to become the standard. (Not the styles of those shoes, just the soles.)

What do you think?

 

[alfrodull]

I still think it makes sense to tailor the shoe to what the activity is for. Is a bare foot really better for running? Maybe, since that's what it mainly evolved to do, but I'm not sure the same would hold true for basketball, let alone activities like dancing or marching band where you actively try to walk unnaturally.

In my experience, athletic shoes really do help with pain when compared to less supportive ones, so I find it more likely those designs will be tweaked due to the findings rather than being abandoned altogether. Keep in mind that a foot moves differently inside even a thin shoe than it would on its own duw to the way pressure is distributed.

 

[trentlogain2]

some things just never seem to get updated or improved. underwear, toilet paper, and shoes. yeah, they try to improve the shoe, but how much can really be added to it. really

edit: in before barefootholly.

 

[explodingboy]

(I've always had my reservations/suspicions about athletic shoes. I mean, how could man even POSSIBLY make a shoe that was better than the bare foot?)

What do you think?

Quite easily really, I mean you've got running spikes for extra grip, then the cushioned parts so you feet hurt less on long distances.

I mean why stop at questioning shoes, why not be suspicious of them aerodynamic suits swimmers wear, I mean how can they improve performance over Skinny dipping as an Olympic sport.

 

[Inkachu]

Bear in mind that if you're overweight, even moderately, exercising on bare feet can get to be extremely painful and hard on your joints (ankles, knees, back). I happen to LOVE being barefoot, I never wear anything on my feet unless I absolutely have to. But when I'm going to be on my feet for a long time, I'd be in agony without some good sneakers.

 

[LoneSheep]

I don't wear shoes if i don't have to, but if you've ever seen the sidewalks in most cities, I really don't want to walk down them barefoot.

 

[Inkachu]

I don't wear shoes if i don't have to, but if you've ever seen the sidewalks in most cities, I really don't want to walk down them barefoot.

Great point, lol. I've stepped on my share of glass shards and such while going outside barefoot.

 

[Hollybarefoot]

barefoot is always best

 

[K9_Trainer]

I can do everything barefoot better than I can with shoes on. I'm just way more sure footed without shoes. I like being able to feel the ground because then I can gauge exactly how much traction I have and I can keep my balance in check. I hate shoes.

 

[Blackguard_]

(Not the styles of those shoes, just the soles.)

I hope not. I hate flat soled shoes. If you want to be naturalistic about footwear look at the soles of your feet; they ain't flat.

barefoot is always best

Reeeally?

 

[Crosscheck]

Okay, question: who exactly lands on their heel while running? Because if you do then you're doing it wrong.

Reality is with, or without, shoes running is a very high impact activity and it's stressful on the joints. Which is why you're seeing a lot of switch over in cardio training to eliptical machines that are much lower impact.

 

[radhead]

I hope not. I hate flat soled shoes. If you want to be naturalistic about footwear look at the soles of your feet; they ain't flat.

But most of our walking surfaces are, indoor and outdoor.

 

[K9_Trainer]

Normal feet shouldn't NEED arch support. They should be able to handle walking on flat ground, or in flat shoes just fine. You only NEED arch support if there's something abnormal about the way your feet are shaped. Like a person with flat feet, they NEED a special type of insole to give their feet support.

My feet are perfectly normal with a perfect arch, so I can walk around barefoot or in flip flops all day and it doesn't bother me. Arch support gives me no added benefit.

 

[Beauty4Ashes]

Normal feet shouldn't NEED arch support. They should be able to handle walking on flat ground, or in flat shoes just fine. You only NEED arch support if there's something abnormal about the way your feet are shaped. Like a person with flat feet, they NEED a special type of insole to give their feet support.

My feet are perfectly normal with a perfect arch, so I can walk around barefoot or in flip flops all day and it doesn't bother me. Arch support gives me no added benefit.

I disagree. People with high arches such as myself often need arch support. My feet hurt terribly if I wear shoes without arch support for more than a few minutes. Barefoot is different. But when it comes to shoes, even flipflops, I have to find ones that have an arch molded into the side.

 

[K9_Trainer]

Right, and a high arch is not a "normal" arch, its high

I actually read a study once that was rather fascinating....It was a comparison of feet in children who had grown up walking around mostly barefoot, children who'd grown up wearing flip flops and other open toed, non supportive shoes, and children who'd grown up wearing close toed shoes that provided support.

The kids that had grown up walking around mostly barefoot or in flip flops had good, strong arches. Flatfootedness was much more common in those that wore regular shoes.

I'll have to see if I can find that again, its been a while.

 

[Beauty4Ashes]

Right, and a high arch is not a "normal" arch, its high

I actually read a study once that was rather fascinating....It was a comparison of feet in children who had grown up walking around mostly barefoot, children who'd grown up wearing flip flops and other open toed, non supportive shoes, and children who'd grown up wearing close toed shoes that provided support.

The kids that had grown up walking around mostly barefoot or in flip flops had good, strong arches. Flatfootedness was much more common in those that wore regular shoes.

I'll have to see if I can find that again, its been a while.

I went barefoot all the time as a kid, so much for that theory

 

[Beauty4Ashes]

Right, and a high arch is not a "normal" arch, its high

I actually read a study once that was rather fascinating....It was a comparison of feet in children who had grown up walking around mostly barefoot, children who'd grown up wearing flip flops and other open toed, non supportive shoes, and children who'd grown up wearing close toed shoes that provided support.

The kids that had grown up walking around mostly barefoot or in flip flops had good, strong arches. Flatfootedness was much more common in those that wore regular shoes.

I'll have to see if I can find that again, its been a while.

I went barefoot a lot of the time as a kid, including hiking in the woods. I rarely wore shoes unless I had to. Though I had to wear gumboots a lot too on rocky beaches and in the water. The kind of beaches I grew up on you would not want to go barefoot on, not the smooth kind of rocks, but the rough jagged kind with tons of barnicles.

Anyways, debunks that theory

 

[The Nihilist]

I actually heard about this on NPR; barefoot running is basically more efficient. The way most people run is, in a lot of ways, just like walking pretty fast. The heel hits first, your roll to the ball, and take off again. The problem with this is that a lot of energy is transferred from your foot to the ground. It can be painful, it's less efficient, and we've spent 60 odd years making shoes designed to deal with this.
On the other hand, if you run barefoot, you can't run like that. It'll hurt pretty bad, and you'll either quit running, or you'll adapt. The better way to run is to hit the ground with the ball of your foot. Rather than putting all that energy into the ground, it's stored in your foot as tension, which gives you an extra boost as that foot comes up. Guys! It's science!

 

[radhead]

The kids that had grown up walking around mostly barefoot or in flip flops had good, strong arches. Flatfootedness was much more common in those that wore regular shoes.

I also heard that flip flops are bad for the feet because of they way they force your feet to...do something, I'm not sure what. Maybe someone else has heard this?

 

[LoneSheep]

barefoot is always best

Only if other people don't object to seeing your feet.