People have been living barefoot for thousands of years. Ancient civilizations such as the Egyptians went barefoot regularly and only used footwear for ornamental purposes. Greek gods and heroes were depicted barefoot, and Alexander the Great conquered half of the ancient world with barefoot armies composed of hoplites, citizen-soldiers famous for their use of the phalanx formation during battle.
In his book “Take Off Your Shoes and Walk”, Simon J. Wikler, Doctor of Surgical Chiropody, points out that foot troubles during this time were nonexistent as seen by the lack of records indicating such problems. It was not until the Renaissance, when the elevated heel and the pointed-toed design in footwear were introduced, that foot problems first began to appear.
Notice the type of footwear depicted in 1434 In the middle ages, the majority of the population did not use these styles of footwear due to their expense. It was only the nobility that could afford such shoes and any deformities that were created by these luxuries posed no serious handicap given the number of servants and maids at their disposal. Because of this, nobility didn’t need the strength in their lower limbs that would normally be required for endeavors such working the fields and that led them to view the broad, muscular, and capable bare foot of the working class as common and ugly. Through this perspective, nobility developed an aesthetic ideal similar to the Chinese custom of foot binding in which small feet were associated with wealth and power. This damaging trend continued to be reflected in most styles of footwear well into the nineteenth century.
Lyman Blake and his invention In 1858, during the middle of the industrial revolution, Lyman Blake’s invention of sewing machinery that could attach the upper leather to the sole of the shoe made it possible to mass produce footwear. Because of this, shoe manufacturing in America grew to a point where anyone could afford the damaging aristocratic footwear.
By the early 1900s, people had lost their reverence for kings and queens and instead began to admire athletes such as tennis champions and channel swimmers. This change in interest popularized footwear such as the black and white saddle shoe, which was roomier than its predecessors, and discouraged the old trend for small feet.
The 1970s brought about sufficient advances in rubber, plastics, synthetics, and adhesives that allowed for new methods of shoe manufacturing. Soles that once had to be machine stitched could now be easily glued on. These simpler crafting techniques led to the creation of the modern shoe. Since then, shoe companies have had over thirty years to improve upon their original designs. Logically, one would assume that shoe related problems today would be nearly non-existent, but according to several studies that have been conducted over the last few years, shoes seem to be having the opposite effect on the human foot by causing more harm than good.
Going Barefoot
It has been estimated that by age forty, about eighty percent of the population will have some muscular-skeletal foot problem. By age 55, this number will have gone up to ninety five percent. And these are just American figures. When comparing shod and unshod populations, it has been found that those who habitually go barefoot tend to have far less foot problems than their shoe-wearing counterparts. In 2007, researchers at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, conducted a study in which they examined 180 people from Sotho, Zulu, and European populations. By comparing their feet to one another’s as well as to the feet of 2,000-year-old human skeletons, researchers found that people had healthier feet before the invention of shoes. Out of the three groups of participants in the study, the Zulu population, which often goes barefoot, had the healthiest feet while Europeans, who normally wear shoes, had the unhealthiest. Dr. Bernhard Zipfel, one of the lead researchers of the study, when commenting on these results, expressed his disappointment in the American Podiatric Medical Association for not encouraging outdoor barefoot activity. “This flies in the face of the increasing scientific evidence …that most of the commercially available footwear is not good for the feet”.
In a similar study published in The Journal of the National Association of Chiropodists, Samuel B. Shulman conducted surveys of people in China and India who had never worn shoes and found that they acquired very few foot defects, most of which were painless and non-debilitating. “Shoes are not necessary for healthy feet and are the cause of most foot troubles” said Shulman. “Footgear is the greatest enemy of the human foot”.
Walking barefoot is very similar to running barefoot in its mechanics. The idea here is to do away with a hard-heel strike and instead use something resembling a mid foot strike. When someone walks barefoot, they employ shorter strides to allow for a softer landing on the heel while keeping their knees slightly bent. They then use a natural step to roll through the outside edge of the foot before landing on the ball of the foot. The toes play a big part in this process as they provide a powerful push forward that carries them smoothly into the next step.
Walking with shoes is a whole different matter. The padded heels of shoes encourage hard landings and rolling through the step becomes a lot harder from the thick sole that constricts the foot. Inflexible shoes prevent the toes from fully pushing off the ground which leaves the legs to do the work in lifting the feet up and down. This deprivation of full foot motion can be especially harmful in the early growth of the foot.
Early Foot Development
Going barefoot is vital for children as it promotes healthy and natural foot development and it maintains foot functionality into adulthood. At birth the human foot consists of a mass of cartilage that slowly grows over a period of several years to become the 26 bones in the adult foot. Walking barefoot allows the ligaments and muscles of the child’s foot to mature properly. According to Tracy Byrne, a podiatrist specializing in podopaediatrics, this increases the strength of the foot’s arch, improves prioception, and contributes to good posture. “The more parents know about the structure of children’s feet, the more we can prevent footwear-related damage being done” she says.
Low Arch (left), High Arch (center), Normal Arch (right) One of the most common foot troubles seen with children is flat foot, which is caused by weakening of a foot’s arch. The arch, one of the greatest weight bearing designs ever created, is vital to the foot’s functions of support and propulsion. The greater the stress is pushing down on it, the stronger it becomes; push up from underneath and the whole structure is weakened. Wearing shoes has a comparable effect for one’s feet. “Putting your feet in shoes is similar to putting them in a plaster cast” says Dr. Gerard Hartmann, a notable Irish physical therapist. “If I put your leg in plaster, we’ll find 40 to 60 percent atrophy of the musculature within six weeks. Something similar happens to your feet when they’re encased in shoes”.
Barefoot Running
Running and walking barefoot both share many of the same positive health effects that would otherwise be unattainable if wearing shoes. The foot is a complex structure that is made out of 26 bones, 33 joints, 120 muscles and ligaments, and over 7,000 nerve endings. Together, these features allow us to support weight, provide shock absorbance, allow movement, and maintain balance when treading over uneven surfaces. Footwear interferes with these natural adaptations to the human form and can cause different injuries such as plantar fasciitis, Achilles tendonitis, Morton’s neuroma, and stress fractures. Because of this, going barefoot has become increasingly popular among athletes, especially for running.
Barefoot running is nothing new. Back in the 1960 Olympic Games in Rome, Ethiopian Abebe Bikila, the greatest Olympic marathoner of all time, won the twenty six mile marathon without shoes. Two-time world cross country champion and former 5,000 meter record holder Zola Budd often trained and competed barefoot. More recently barefoot running has become a hot topic in the sporting world due in part to Chris McDougall’s 2009 bestselling book Born to Run. In it, he describes how after experiencing repeated injuries as a runner, he sought out members of the Tarahumara Indian tribe in Northern Mexico. In his book, he marvels at the Tarahumaras’ ability to run extremely long distances of over 100 miles at incredible speeds without undergoing the regular injuries of American runners. This rising nationwide running trend, which has continually been backed by research, has convinced many athletes to ditch their shoes and adopt the barefoot approach.
Running shoes provide their wearers with supposed advantages such as padding and shock absorbance. With these and other running-enhancing features, it is natural to assume that there would be great amounts of research coming from the $27 billion American shoe industry to support the claim that running shoes diminish or prevent injury. Surprisingly, Dr. Craig Richards, a researcher at the University of Newcastle in Australia, has discovered that there is no such evidence that proves running shoes make one less prone to injury. It seems that the shoe industry is based on nothing but wishful thinking and empty promises and to prove a point, Richards proposed a challenge: “Is any running-shoe company prepared to claim that wearing their distance running-shoe will decrease your risk of suffering musculoskeletal running injuries? If you are prepared to make these claims where is your peer-reviewed data to back it up?”
Many running shoes market features such as stability, cushioning, and maximized performance all for the low-low price of $80 to $200, depending on the brand and model. With such a hefty price tag, buyers of such shoes expect to get a bang for their buck and would be surprised by the 1989 discovery that runners wearing top of the line shoes are 123 percent more likely to get injured than runners in cheap ones.
Dr. Bernard Marti, a leading expert in preventative medicine at the University of Bern in Switzerland, conducted a study where he and his research team analyzed 4,358 runners of the Bern Grand Prix, a 16 mile road race, during the year that led up to the day of the event. Using survey questionnaires in which runners detailed training habits and footwear used throughout the year, researchers examined the nature of running injuries. Out of the 83.6% who reported injury, 45.8% sustained injury during the one-year study period, 14.2% required medical care, and 2.3% missed work because of running injuries. What Dr. Marti found shocking was that the most common cause of injury did not come from the running speed, training surface, or weekly mileage of the runners. Instead what he found was that those who ran in footwear costing more than $95 were two times more likely to get injured than those running in shoes that were less than $50. This study casts many doubts on the effectiveness of running shoes and it shows that for double the price one can get double the pain.
In an article from the Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise Journal, Dr. Steven E. Robbins of McGill University Center for Studies in Aging in Montreal wrote that the running shoe features that many manufacturers promote create what he calls a perceptual illusion. Because of an athletic shoe’s comfort when running or walking, if the foot undergoes harmful stresses the wearer does not feel any significant discomfort and perceives a collision that is lower than what it actually is. This in turn “…results in inadequate impact-moderating behavior and consequent injury”.
In addition, Robbins goes on to state that “The modern running shoe and footwear in general have successfully diminished sensory feedback without diminishing the injury inducing impact, a dangerous situation”. Thus, even with all of a shoe’s cushioning which deprives the wearer of sensory feedback from the feet so that running no longer “hurts”, injury is still frequently the result. Barefoot runners, on the other hand, naturally adapt their running style in such a way that does not make it painful. According to Robbins, this has been shown in barefoot populations where running related injuries are rare and he concludes by saying that “…it seems appropriate to consider expensive athletic footwear from major manufacturers (and perhaps less expensive shoes) as unsafe”.
This question of running injuries caused by the foot’s collision with the ground motivated Dr. Daniel E. Lieberman, professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University, to conduct an experiment in which he examined impact forces generated when running barefoot versus shod. Working with runners from the United States and Kenya, Lieberman looked at the running patterns of those who had always run barefoot, those who had always worn shoes, and those who had switched to barefoot running from shod running. The results were intriguing.
“People who don’t wear shoes when they run have an astonishingly different strike” said Lieberman after finding that those who ran barefoot avoided heel striking and instead landed on the ball or the middle of the foot. People who run barefoot are more likely to land on the forefoot followed by a backwards drop of the heel that is controlled by the calf muscles. As the center of mass moves over the foot, the heel lifts through contraction of these muscles along with momentum and ends with a push off through the toes. Running in shoes, on the other hand, encourages a hard heel landing which is followed by a mid stance period where the leg moves over the foot and, as with barefoot running, ends with the propulsive period as the foot pivots over the toes. Running with shoes is “…like someone hitting you on the heel with a hammer two or three times your body weight” explained Lieberman. “By landing on the middle or front of the foot, barefoot runners have almost no impact collision, much less than most shod runners generate when they heel strike”.
powered by Youtube
This puts into question the notion of many people who think that barefoot running is dangerous and hurts. “A lot of foot and knee injuries currently plaguing us are caused by people running with shoes that actually make our feet weak, cause us to over-pronate and give us knee problems” said Dr. Lieberman. According to him, one can actually run barefoot on the world’s hardest surfaces without the slightest pain and discomfort and “…it might be less injurious than the way some people run in shoes”.
Hygiene and Safety
First of all, let’s face it. Going barefoot causes feet to get dirty. It’s inevitable, but dirt is only that. The idea that there are harmful diseases spread all over the ground is baseless at best and on the off chance that there are, the probability of actually getting ill from briefly walking over one is low for it would be wiped off the foot as one continues to move. To take this thought a bit further, consider how clean one’s bare foot is compared to their shoe. Most people wash their feet daily in the shower. The same thing cannot often be said about the inside of their shoes. In fact, it can be easily argued that one’s hands are typically far more “dirty” than bare feet.
After walking around barefoot all day, the bottom of one’s feet will have collected a fair amount of dirt but other than that, what else could have made them so unclean? On the other hand, one should think about the number of people that have touched the bathroom door handle, grabbed the TV remote, and typed on the same computer keyboard. How clean were their hands then?
In the face of such unsanitary conditions one does not normally wear protective gloves. Yet by sealing the feet away inside shoes, it is believed that they will somehow become immune to harm and disease. This type of mentality has led many to think that one can do all sorts of damage and catch different types of diseases simply by going barefoot without being fully aware of the protective abilities and adaptations of the skin that covers the feet.
The skin, as the body’s largest organ, possesses many unique properties that aid against extreme temperatures, ultraviolet radiation, and harmful toxins. Even though skin serves as the body’s first line of defense against infection from pathogens such as fungi and bacteria, this protection is severely weakened when not exposed to sufficient light and air. Harmful organisms that thrive in dark, warm, and moist conditions are given the perfect environment to flourish inside the confines of shoes. One of the most common types of infection is athlete’s foot. The fact that it’s moisture, sweating, and lack of proper ventilation of the feet that present the perfect setting for athlete’s foot to grow led the American Academy of Dermatology to conclude that, “…athlete’s foot does not occur among people who traditionally go barefoot”. The same thing can be said for other infectious diseases.
Skin’s protective qualities are also demonstrated in plantar skin which has been shown to be well designed to guard the feet against injury. Dr. Steven E. Robbins, in an article entitled Protective sensation of the plantar aspect of the foot, states that when compared to the skin of the thigh “…plantar skin requires approximately 600% greater abrading loads to reach pain threshold”. In addition, he goes on to say that “…when the plantar surface is subjected to localized load via sharp deforming objects, it deforms so as to contain the object in the void created by the deforming object, thus resisting perforation”. This resistance to penetration led him to state that “…plantar skin is well protected through sensory feedback from abrasive injuries when barefoot”. Robbins therefore concluded that the risk of injury when “…individuals perform barefoot locomotion should be low”.
Society, Tradition, and the Law
In today’s society it is common practice for people to be shod most of the time except at places like the beach, in the shower, or in bed. It seems that being barefoot in public has become a social taboo with no logical basis. Why is that? Perhaps it’s from the regrettable stereotypes that have emerged over the years or the nonexistent laws and regulations that have misled many into believing that it’s illegal to go without shoes. Maybe the only reason that more people don’t go barefoot is that they’re afraid to be unconventional.
In Western society, particularly in the United States, going barefoot has become increasingly unwelcoming in many places. This type of behavior is often viewed with contempt, so much so that many wishing to engage in such a lifestyle are driven into conformity for fear of going against society’s norms. Such negativity was not always the case. Many older Americans recall their youth when they themselves would go barefoot for days or months at a time, sometimes even to school. The fact that some people still go barefoot despite the strong social pressures goes to show the importance of the benefits that it offers.
Bare feet are sometimes associated with the outdated counterculture movement of the 1960s and the false notion that whoever goes barefoot is automatically classified as a junkie, a drop-out, or a hippie. Such stereotypes are the result of the unfortunate human tendency to discriminate against things not understood and they could be farther from the truth. Barefooters choose to go without shoes because of the many health benefits, comforts, and pleasures that such a lifestyle offers. They include men and women from many walks of life who want nothing to do with disrespect, vandalism, or other frowned upon behavior. Nevertheless, this negative image of barefooters depicting them as immature and irresponsible people can be attributed to the decision some establishments take in disallowing unshod customers.
It is a great misconception in the United States that shoes are required by law in places of business, especially restaurants. The reason that businesses often give for putting up “No shoes, No shirt, No service” signs is that they are required to do so by health department regulations. This would seem like a justified reason for having such a footwear policy except that these so called “regulations” are nothing more than urban legends that have no legal standing in most parts of the U.S. This is because there are no laws, codes, or regulations in existence that prohibit bare feet in such establishments. To ensure that this was indeed the case for the state of California, the writer of this article went ahead and contacted the California Department of Public Health. In a response from the State of California Health and Human Services Agency, Glenn Takeoka, the Chief of the Environmental Management Branch of California, stated that “I am not aware of any state statutes that require the wearing of shoes or other footwear in such places”.
Once these phantom laws and health department myths are shown to be false, the next reason that businesses give for a policy requiring footwear is the infamous broken glass argument that is: “You might cut yourself and sue us”. In order to successfully sue a business for injury the four elements of negligence must be proven. These are: a duty of care to the customer, a breach of that duty, a causal link between the breach and damage, and the actual damage. It is important to note that in terms of the duty of care to the customer, the doctrine of assumption of risk states that “…no duty of care is owed as to risks inherent in a given activity”. This means that unless the business was engaged in activity that would have harmed the customer regardless of his or her footwear, any attempt to bring liability charges against a business for injury caused in going barefoot would very likely result in failure. Nevertheless, while broken glass certainly does exist, unless it was from a recent breakage, it is not likely to be found strewn all over the ground. On the rare occasion that it is, most people have the sense to walk around it.
Then there is the argument that bare feet are somehow offensive to other customers. If an establishment is offended by this one can’t help but wonder how a thin strip of material going across the foot in a flip-flop or a sandal makes it any more appropriate when there is little difference in overall appearance. Under the current mindset, it would be perfectly acceptable if a customer with seven-inch spiked green hair, wearing a black leather jacket lined with metal studs, and a body covered in tattoos and piercings were to enter a place of business. But as soon as a well-dressed customer walks in barefoot, they are immediately told to put something on their feet or else are asked to leave. Why is there a general belief that someone has the right not to be offended? In the case of Ferguson v. Gies, the supreme court of Michigan stated that a man who goes to a public place must expect to mingle with all classes of people. “He may draw his social line as closely as he chooses at his home, or in other private places, but he cannot in a public place carry the privacy of his home with him, or ask that people not as good or as great as he is shall step aside when he appears”.
Final Remarks
Since ancient times, people have been going about their lives barefoot and it wasn’t until the invention of shoes that foot problems began to appear. Throughout the years, various experts and researchers have conducted studies to examine the extent of the damage created by wearing shoes and time and time again, the conclusions have been the same: that shoes cause more harm than good. Because of this, more and more athletes have started to go barefoot as a way to prevent, or at times alleviate, injuries caused while shod. This is especially true with running.
Despite the many advantages that have been found in going barefoot, they don’t seem enough to convince people whose worries are based in other false beliefs. Concerns that discourage many from going barefoot out on the streets range from walking over dirt found on sidewalks to stepping on a rusty nail that somehow managed to land with its tip pointing up. Yet, if one stops and considers the body’s natural ability to adapt, these issues prove to be of little concern to one’s health and safety.
Finally, there is the social stigma that is associated in going barefoot. The negativity that society has placed on those who go barefoot in public, especially in the United States, has remained entrenched in misconceptions that don’t stand up against any logical reasoning. Barefooters are ordinary people who just happen to like going barefoot for the many benefits that such a lifestyle offers.
Leonardo Da Vinci once said that “The human foot is a masterpiece of engineering and a work of art”. Perhaps now after having discussed these many aspects of barefooting, one will be able to better understand the extraordinary abilities of the human foot and instead of regarding it as a fragile instrument, they can treat it as the resilient and highly adaptable moving apparatus that it really is.
I was shown this fantastic article today and wanted to spread it about.
Tangents 