Barefooters

No arguments there

 

I don't walk on sidewalks or anything when I barefoot. The main thing that is actually a concern for me as far as health goes I'm more worried about the lack of arch support leading to more back troubles for me.

 

Actually, unless you have a structural issue with your feet such as collapsed arches, barefoot is much better for your back. Plenty of information available on this very subject over at the SBL site.

I credit my 15 years of barefooting, along with proper posture and lifting techniques with my essentially trouble-free lower back, regardless of the predominance of this issue in our family.

 

CloudFlower, why would arches need "supporting"? Why would God, or Nature, or evolution - or whatever you may believe as to how human beings were created - have designed some part of the human body that needs some kind of outside "support"? Feet are perfectly capable of functioning on all surfaces without some artificial crutch.

Seohsreven in his post is absolutely right.

Of course, if you've worn shoes for years, your feet may have become weak and somewhat atrophied, just like your hands would be if you kept them covered up with tight leather mittens all day long for many years. But once you get rid of the shoes, your feet will soon become stronger and healthier as they adjust to being free and natural as they were intended to be. Don't worry about some of these myths you've heard about feet or arches needing "support." The shoe industry would love for people to keep believing that.

 

Well, in fact walking on pavement, sidewalks and other "manmade" materials weren't around while our feet were evolving, so I can see how some people would find walking on them to be causes of extra stress on bodies, joints, etc. I know that I can feel a difference in my own body when going barefoot on harder surfaces, as opposed to our naturally supporting earth (well it could be that I notice it more because the amount of moisture we get in the NW leads us to have soft, moist soil much of the year, making it more of a contrast between that and unyielding blacktop or pavement).

But I agree that our feet don't need the artificial support of shoes most of the time.

 

deleted duplicate

 

True, and I know you're not saying this, but this does remind me a little of the hypothesis generally put forth by many shoe wearing advocates. And that is, that, "sure, bare feet are natural and designed to walk without support - but, not on the surfaces created by modern civilization, therefore shoes are needed in today's world." I don't agree with such thinking at all. First, even before such "manmade" materials like concrete and asphalt were around, there were plenty of similar hard flat surfaces around. Second, feet are designed to handle any surface or terrain, including hard manmade surfaces. But, let's face it - of course different surfaces or different terrains have different effects on the body. Walking up hill will tire you quicker than walking on a level surface. Walking on a hard surface may tire you quicker than walking on a soft or variable surface. None of that means one is better or worse than the other for the body or for bare feet. It's just that surfaces everywhere are different and will be handled differently by the feet and by the body, and it's all natural and good.

As personal anecdotal evidence, I have run, walked, and hiked on hard asphalt surfaces barefoot for many years. (Other surfaces as well, of course, but many hard "manmade" surfaces.) My feet are strong; I have very high arches, and no problems with my knees or back.

 

Consider yourself lucky! Not all knee problems are induced by footwear or the lack of it. I am on acl # 3 in my left knee and it has nothing to do with wearing or not wearing anything on my feet!

 

Perhaps I should clarify what I said. I have had a knee problem, but it had nothing to do with (as you mentioned) wearing or not wearing anything on my feet. I severely tore the cartilage in my right knee many years ago in martial arts, and as a result have had 3 surgeries on it. It's still a little unstable, so I have to be careful about running or jumping now on that leg. However, it is so much better and stronger now than it used to be since I started going barefoot fulltime about 6 years ago. So, going barefoot on hard as well as other surfaces certainly has not caused any problems with my knees, back, or anything else, as I said before, and on the contrary, has made my whole body stronger and healthier.

 

And that leads me to clarify what I said as well. Which is to say that what is true for YOU or even for many might not be true for everyone. The truth is that while our bodies are marvels of biology and "engineering", we are each subtly different as far as structure and posture are concerned. And while we are all patterned on the exact same "model", we each have different anatomy and some of us might experience more stress in our bodies from being barefoot on any surface. Now, without doing an exhaustive study with a large segment of the population, it's impossible to say with certainty that bare feet are well suited for hard, manmade surfaces. Your experience tells you one thing, but my experience tells me something different.

I think it's great that you have seen no correlation between your going barefoot and any health issues. On the other hand, I do notice that I have less joint pain in my legs when I'm wearing my flip flops than when I go barefoot on hard surfaces - that inch or so of cushioning takes some of the pressure off my knees and hips. As an example, when I moved into our house two years ago, I noticed a definite difference in pain levels in my joints from previous years. The difference? Hardwood floors throughout most of our house. In prior dwellings, I had mostly carpet. I still feel a difference between going barefoot in the house and going barefoot on carpet - I can almost literally feel my whole body "sigh" when I step onto a softer surface. Now, I am not going to put my flip flops on to walk around the house, but I have discovered that I spend a great deal more time in our one carpeted room as a result.

Of all things in our body, our feet probably bear the greatest burdens outside of our hearts and our brains so I don't think it "hurts the barefoot cause" to admit that for some people, even those of us who prefer to be barefoot when we can, the support of shoes (or in my case, flip flops) can be a legitimate benefit when walking on harder surfaces.

 

I suppose shoes can be thought of as a "legitimate" benefit to bare feet the same way a crutch can be thought of as a legitimate benefit to weak or poorly functional legs. But it certainly does "hurt the barefoot cause," in my opinion, to talk about feet needing some kind of support in some situations. If you personally prefer soft surfaces to hard surfaces, that's fine, but to imply that in general shoes are needed or are some kind of "benefit" for harder surfaces is very misleading, especially for those people who may be just starting out or thinking about becoming a barefooter. What you're saying, to use one of your examples of another vital part of the body - the heart, is like since aerobic type exercise is tiring and somewhat uncomfortable until we get used to it, we should never do it. But the fact is, though it may be a little uncomfortable at first, that's the way the heart gets stronger, and therefore we become healthier. If you keep avoiding walking on hard or rough surfaces, because soft carpets and flip-flops just feel more comfortable, your feet will never strengthen up, and soft surfaces will always feel better. That's all well and good I suppose if that's all you want out of going barefoot. But going barefoot really offers so much more than what you apparently have yet experienced. I simply don't agree with your point of view on this.

 

Two issues with this blanket statement:

1. Only tangentially relevant, but relevant nonetheless: There are certain environments where footwear is necessary, for example:
   • Foundries
   • Steel re-bar construction
   • Farms
   • Petting Zoos
   • Machine Shops
   • Etc...
2. Some folks just can't barefoot, even if they really want to. Examples:
   • Their pain threshold may be low
   • They may have balance issues
   • Their level of self-actualization may be low
   • Their fear of being non-conformist may be overwhelming.

Like being vegetarian, being a barefooter is not something you can bludgeon people into. You need to be compassionate and understanding of those whose situation or condition(s) may prevent them from participating fully. Creeping elitism and fanaticism is an element which is dangerous to any movement, especially when considering physical abilities. Having more sensitive joints or a lower pain threshold does not constitute a "defect".

While, as you earlier stated and I emphasized, we need to counter myths such as the arch support misconception, we also need to understand that everyone's needs, even psychological ones and especially situational ones are entirely legitimate. Disclaimers are your friend

 

This was certainly not a "blanket statement." It was simply an analogy and was worded in such a way to indicate that it's only my opinion, with such words as "suppose" and "thought." If you want to see an example of a "blanket statement," look at the one you just made below:

You say footwear "is necessary" in all those situations, no ifs, ands, or buts. The fact is that footwear is NOT "necessary" in any of those situations. Of course any individual who may feel uncomfortable or unsafe in some way in those places may choose to not be barefoot. There is no necessity involved. (Farms? Petting zoos? Come on.)

What??? Apparently because I don't quite agree with you on some issues you're characterizing that as "elitism" and "fanaticism" and what I'm saying as "dangerous"? The simple fact is I feel people have the free choice to go barefoot pretty much anywhere if they choose and their physical abilities to do so may not be as limited as they may think at first. Our bodies, including our bare feet, are amazingly adaptable. You, on the other hand, seem to feel that there are tangible limitations on being able to go barefoot, whether physical or psychological, beyond which no one should ever hope for or attempt to go. I simply have a different point of view, and I would think that if you were comfortable with your position, such rather sinister characterizations of my position would have been unnecessary.

 

You've evolved past hookworm?

 

• Foundries: Have you ever been on a foundry floor? I worked in one years ago. The floor is constantly covered in moving bits of molten metal. Workers are required to wear fireproof reflective full-body covering. You're telling me that footwear is optional?
  
• Steel re-bar construction: Have you ever walked on a steel rebar grid with wireties? I have one right outside my door where we're doing ongoing construction and have tried it (most difficult surface I've ever tried, BTW), but I would not do it again and would forbid our workers from going barefoot on this stuff. The wireties are razor sharp and shred even the toughest feet in seconds (as my cuts from the stuff attest to).
  
• Farms: Perhaps a clarification is in order: When I referred to farms, I meant (primarily commercial) ones where animals are raised for production purposes. These types of farms are breeding grounds for hoof-in mouth disease, avian flu, hookworms and a host of other pathogens. Common practice in Asia requires commercial poultry workers to wear Tyvec suits, respirators and shoe covers. Going barefoot in this environment would be tantamount to suicide. I hesitate to walk barefoot in feces, regardless of its origin.
  
• Petting Zoos: Petting zoos have been increasingly linked to serious illness in shoddies. Once again I hesitate to walk barefoot in feces, regardless of its origin.
  
• Machine Shops: Have you ever worked in a machine shop? Not the office, but the floor. I have, and can tell you that walking barefoot in such an environment is folly. There are razor-sharp shards of steel lying thick around the machinery at all times, hot metal rolling across the floor in the welding and cutting areas and large pieces of heavy metal being lowered to the floor. There's a real reason why OSHA requires steel-toed boots in these facilities in the states, and it has nothing to do with hating bare feet in general.

Stating "The fact is that footwear is NOT necessary in any of those situations" implies an inflexibility characteristic of fanaticism:

The definition of fanaticism used in this context would be "...behavior especially as exhibited by excessive enthusiasm, unreasoning zeal, or wild and extravagant notions on some subject" Your statements have many of these characteristics, therefore, the use of the term is appropriate. It's not meant to imply anything sinister, but is merely an observation based on statements made. Really, think about how absurd some of these notions are:

• Barefoot downhill skiing
• Barefoot outer space exploration
• Barefoot flat track motorcycle racing
• Barefoot toxic waste cleanup
• Barefoot cesspool cleaning

FWIW, bfrank, I agree with 90% of what you say, but there are times and places where shoes are required. Heck even I, who have not otherwise worn any shoes anywhere for 14 years (including subways world wide), wear SPD sandals while engaging in hard-core mountain biking, because your feet need to be physically attached to the bike (I don't consider this wearing shoes, but rather, wearing a bike .

 

I guess you're implying that hookworm can be caught from animals. Not likely. In fact, the chances of that happening are practically nil. First, hookworm, as are most other diseases and infections, tends to be species specific. That is, any hookworms that would infect animals are extremely unlikely to infect a different species, such as humans. Second, the farm animals or petting zoo animals would have to have been very poorly taken care of and neglected, and so have been allowed to become infected. Third, just walking barefoot in feces contaminated with hookworm larvae is not going to give it to you either, because you'd pretty much have to stand around in it for a while since it takes a bit of time for the larvae to attach itself to skin. So, again, even if the second and third conditions are met, the first one pretty much eliminates any possibility of catching hookworm from animals anyway.

I know some people do believe there is some risk there, but that's pretty much misinformation and myth, just like a lot of other beliefs in this country about going barefoot.

Just think about it. People in this country and other parts of the world have been doing farm work barefoot around animals (involving a lot of walking and standing in manure of all kinds) for a very long time - and presumably many still do today, and have not experienced this as a problem. My own father was raised on a farm, and he has spoken many times about always being barefoot. Never had hookworm and never knew anyone else that had it. Being on a farm or around animals is no reason not to be barefoot.

In the olden days, infection from human hookworm was certainly more likely a problem. But situations of human hookworm infection can only occur where raw sewage that includes recently deposited infected human feces is left on the ground and barefoot people constantly are exposed to it. Modern sanitation has practically eliminated that possibility, certainly in the United States, as well as in most of the world.

 

Your original message stated that in all these places footwear was "necessary" without qualification. Now you're giving me all kinds of qualifications, such as requirements of employers, OSHA rules, and other things. If an employer requires footwear for whatever reason, then of course it becomes "necessary" if you're going to work there. Otherwise, what is "necessary" is determined by the individual making the decision - not YOU based on an arbitrary list of places where YOU would not go barefoot. In other words, apparently if a place is too risky for you to go barefoot, it's too risky for anyone to go barefoot. I don't agree with that. Everyone has a right to make his or her own decision about where or when he or she will go barefoot and what risks if any he or she will assume.

Once again, you find it very difficult to accept an opinion different from yours, and can only respond with negative characterizations and what amounts to personal insults. How is what you're accusing me of - that is "fanatical inflexibility" along with all the various facets of your "definition" - any different from what you yourself are doing? I see no difference. What I do see that's different is that I am not accusing you of being absurd, being wild, having unreasoning zeal, or extravagant notions because you see things differently from me. I can accept that others have different opinions and may believe strongly in those opinions. You obviously cannot.

 

Without splitting hairs, suffice it to say that shoes have their place. Denying this is just silly. I suppose if you want to take a long walk off a short pier that's your perogative...

I have no problems accepting other opinions, but do have issues with an unwillingness to see common sense.

 

I've never said shoes didn't have their place. Shoes should be used as a tool, imo, like gloves. To make blanket statements as you have done that footwear is absolutely "necessary" in a long list of situations - and without exception - is not only simplistic, it sends the wrong message to the many people who may be reading this who already "know" that going barefoot under any conditions is dangerous. There are only two conditions that are absolute in this world that would cause damage to bare feet and therefore one might conclude that protective footwear was a "necessity."

1. Extreme temperature conditions, that is, surfaces, such as hot asphalt, so hot that feet would be burned, or sub-freezing conditions where feet or toes would suffer frostbite.

2. Situations where there are immediate and tangible hazards to feet - such as sharp glass shards sticking up - which cannot be avoided by stepping carefully.

What is unsafe to one person may be acceptable risk to someone else. To set up some kind of arbitrary list of places or situations where you say it's impossible to be barefoot simply denies free will and ignores exceptions. I think most people in the world, and especially those reading these forums, are not stupid and can pretty much figure out their own limitations. And though those limitations may vary by individual, most can be expanded significantly with practice, determination, and encouragement from others. Unfortunately, we get enough arbitrary rules against going barefoot thrown at us from various sources who don't really know any better, so more rules and restrictions pointed out by those who should know better are not constructive at all, in my opinion. We should be encouraging barefooting, seems to me, not discouraging it by making it sound scary and hazardous.

Yes, but only as long as that "common sense" coincides and follows lockstep with your own opinions. Not everyone agrees on what is common sense, unfortunately, and the term has been used by shoe police to justify forcing barefooters to wear shoes. I've been told it's just "common sense" to wear shoes in a store because "everyone else does." What I feel is true common sense is that human beings were born with enough intelligence to think for themselves and make their own decisions about what risks they will accept and what they will wear or not wear on their feet.

 

Methinks you contradict yourself, but I'll not split hairs. Let's just agree that barefoot outer space exploration is a bad idea