Well that got me thinking about newborn babies, neck braces and these women:
(From chimerachronicle.wordpress.com) Now what do you suppose would happen if this woman suddenly removed all of the metal rings from around her neck? I'm guessing her head would flop over uncontrollably, possibly breaking her neck and paralyzing her. She might be able to hold up her head, but her control over it would be pretty terrible.
But why would that happen? After all, you and I can hold our heads up just fine, right? Shouldn't she be able to?
Oh, but wait, there ARE perfectly good people who don't have rings around their necks that can't hold their heads up. They generally look like this:
(This is my baby girl Katherine, less than a day old in this pic)So what's the difference? The first has a strong neck and weakens it over time by restricting its movement. The second has a weak neck and strengthens it over time by allowing it to move freely.
We never say that babies need neck braces or metal rings for the rest of their lives. We know that over time they will become strong enough, that their necks will do what they were born to do.
But there are times that we injure ourselves. Sometimes, then, doctors even put a part of our body in a cast or brace to facilitate healing. We've all seen someone's leg after they've had a cast or brace removed. It's usually smaller than the other leg, atrophied from lack of use. In those cases, doctors either recommend physical therapy to restrengthen the leg or reassure the patient that the leg will get back to normal over time.
We essentially place a cast on our feet every time we put on shoes. While not as restrictive as a cast, shoes greatly limit the amount of flexion in our feet. Our feet may not atrophy like they do when placed in a cast, but it's reasonable to assume that when placed in shoes on a regular basis they are not as strong as they could be. But let's take it to the extreme.
For approximately 1,000 years, some women in China were subjected to the practice of foot binding. It was believed that a small foot on a woman is a beautiful foot. In an attempt for women's feet to be more "attractive," their arches would be broken, tightly bound and crammed into shoes that were way too small for any normal foot. Over the course of their lifetimes, these women would develop permanent disabling deformities, leaving their feet looking like anything but something human:
(from neatorama.com)
The gap in her foot is where her arch used to be. More disturbingly, I think, are her toes. Do you see them? They're curled up underneath the foot, just in front of the arch.
"But Michael," you may say, "our society isn't like that. We don't torture anyone to make their feet look better. Our shoes certainly don't cause deformities like that." Oh don't they?
The very blog entry from which I got that photo is about high heels: what to wear and what to avoid. These shoes are listed as what to wear. Now imagine wearing shoes like this 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for a roughly 45-year career. While not as extreme, I've got to think they'd do something to your foot.
We've all seen them. They're the older ladies with the orthopedic sandals. If you dare look down at their feet, you might see something like this:
.jpg)
(from WatkinsFootCenter.com)
That sure is attractive, isn't it? While men's shoes don't typically restrict the toes as badly, we have it pretty bad too, guys.
Folks, we're killing our feet with every stupid good-looking, malformed shoe that we put on! Whether it's making our feet weaker or flat out deforming them, we have trained ourselves to be unkind to the southern end of our bodies. Even athletic shoes and non-pointed dress shoes restrict our feet.
"It's good for toddlers to go barefoot because it helps their feet develop," many people say. I've heard it a lot when I've shared my barefooting story with them. But then those same people will say that we adults shouldn't go barefoot everywhere. If bare feet are good for toddlers, why aren't they good for adults? If we believe that shoes can be bad for a kiddo's foot, why do we adults insist on wearing them when we really don't have to? Protection?
Obviously there are instances in our society where shoes are necessary. Whether it be for protection or other means, some footwear is good once and a while. And fortunately, there are companies that make "minimalist" footwear such as the Vibram FiveFingers or VivoBarefoot shoes. This footwear has been designed to let our feet be as flexible and free as possible while still adding a layer of protection. I heavily promote this stuff as a good go-between if someone is unwilling or unable to go unshod.
But our feet are meant to be bare. We were born that way and our feet should stay that way as much as possible. It builds strength, flexibility and avoids deformity. Sure, cute shoes are fun. Sure, many find feet unattractive. But feet can be fun, too. Our feet can remain attractive if well maintained.
In the end, are we really willing to sacrifice a part of our bodies because we're concerned about fashion or even a little dirt, or are we willing to embrace a neglected part of our bodies and enjoy even more of our world by living barefoot whenever possible?
We never say that babies need neck braces or metal rings for the rest of their lives. We know that over time they will become strong enough, that their necks will do what they were born to do.
But there are times that we injure ourselves. Sometimes, then, doctors even put a part of our body in a cast or brace to facilitate healing. We've all seen someone's leg after they've had a cast or brace removed. It's usually smaller than the other leg, atrophied from lack of use. In those cases, doctors either recommend physical therapy to restrengthen the leg or reassure the patient that the leg will get back to normal over time.
We essentially place a cast on our feet every time we put on shoes. While not as restrictive as a cast, shoes greatly limit the amount of flexion in our feet. Our feet may not atrophy like they do when placed in a cast, but it's reasonable to assume that when placed in shoes on a regular basis they are not as strong as they could be. But let's take it to the extreme.
For approximately 1,000 years, some women in China were subjected to the practice of foot binding. It was believed that a small foot on a woman is a beautiful foot. In an attempt for women's feet to be more "attractive," their arches would be broken, tightly bound and crammed into shoes that were way too small for any normal foot. Over the course of their lifetimes, these women would develop permanent disabling deformities, leaving their feet looking like anything but something human:
(from neatorama.com)The gap in her foot is where her arch used to be. More disturbingly, I think, are her toes. Do you see them? They're curled up underneath the foot, just in front of the arch.
"But Michael," you may say, "our society isn't like that. We don't torture anyone to make their feet look better. Our shoes certainly don't cause deformities like that." Oh don't they?
The very blog entry from which I got that photo is about high heels: what to wear and what to avoid. These shoes are listed as what to wear. Now imagine wearing shoes like this 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for a roughly 45-year career. While not as extreme, I've got to think they'd do something to your foot.
We've all seen them. They're the older ladies with the orthopedic sandals. If you dare look down at their feet, you might see something like this:
.jpg)
(from WatkinsFootCenter.com)That sure is attractive, isn't it? While men's shoes don't typically restrict the toes as badly, we have it pretty bad too, guys.
Folks, we're killing our feet with every stupid good-looking, malformed shoe that we put on! Whether it's making our feet weaker or flat out deforming them, we have trained ourselves to be unkind to the southern end of our bodies. Even athletic shoes and non-pointed dress shoes restrict our feet.
"It's good for toddlers to go barefoot because it helps their feet develop," many people say. I've heard it a lot when I've shared my barefooting story with them. But then those same people will say that we adults shouldn't go barefoot everywhere. If bare feet are good for toddlers, why aren't they good for adults? If we believe that shoes can be bad for a kiddo's foot, why do we adults insist on wearing them when we really don't have to? Protection?
Obviously there are instances in our society where shoes are necessary. Whether it be for protection or other means, some footwear is good once and a while. And fortunately, there are companies that make "minimalist" footwear such as the Vibram FiveFingers or VivoBarefoot shoes. This footwear has been designed to let our feet be as flexible and free as possible while still adding a layer of protection. I heavily promote this stuff as a good go-between if someone is unwilling or unable to go unshod.
But our feet are meant to be bare. We were born that way and our feet should stay that way as much as possible. It builds strength, flexibility and avoids deformity. Sure, cute shoes are fun. Sure, many find feet unattractive. But feet can be fun, too. Our feet can remain attractive if well maintained.
In the end, are we really willing to sacrifice a part of our bodies because we're concerned about fashion or even a little dirt, or are we willing to embrace a neglected part of our bodies and enjoy even more of our world by living barefoot whenever possible?
I enjoyed reading this. I have seen pictures of the womens feet that break them to make them small before. Makes my stomach turn. I love going barefoot! That's why the warmer months are my favorite. My three year old also LOVES no shoes. First thing she does after being buckled in the carseat is take them off. Instead of being a parent who scolds her and tells her that we can't do that, I let them stay off. There is no problem with her riding in a grocery cart with no shoes. Doesn't matter what others think. She's happy, I'm happy, and most important HER FEET ARE HAPPY! =) YOu have no mention of this though:
ReplyDeleteWhat about the cold months? Ya know, with snow and everything, not so great. I do wear foot gear in the winter!=)
I think you'll find that the Web sites of the shoes mentioned have options that could work fine in colder weather. From what I understand, there will be a VivoBarefoot boot released in the fall.
ReplyDeleteExcellent summary Michael! I really like the similarities you trace between the neck bracing and limb casting to extended shoe wearing.
ReplyDeleteI often use the analogy of wearing a pair of boxing gloves on one's hands for extended periods to illustrate a similar point: If we had our hands in a fixed position for such long periods, we would render useless very quickly.
Well done!
This was a great post, Michael.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that a lot of folks in our society do as much as possible to isolate themselves from nature and their natural state of being.
Taking the dog for a walk in the rain the other night (barefoot of course - hey, if it's good enough for the dog, it's good enough for me) illustrated this.
Or rather, some of the looks I got did, from the passing cars.
Both of us were soaked to the bone (no rain gear), and mud up to our knees :)
I'd have had it no other way. The alternative was to sit inside and mope around, staring out the window at the rain!
Nice post - people often forget how adaptable the human body is to the conditions we place it in. Love your binding analogies!
ReplyDeleteAs others have stated, this was a great post. Very illustrative and to the point. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteThe neck rings worn by women in SE Asia do NOT stretch their necks, they compress the rib cage. While this IS a distortion of the natural body, it's largely an optical illusion.
ReplyDeleteThe rings are removed on a weekly basis to be rewound and allow the women to wash. I have seen video footage of this in anthropology classes. The "neck flopping" around image is a frequent urban legend.
I agree with many of the ideas you posit in this blog, but all comparisons require legit data.