Why should you go barefoot?

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.

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".

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.