When It Comes to Shoes, More is Less

I have watched as shoe companies have done everything they can to produce footwear that is intended to improve our ways of life. Years ago I remember when a new style of walking shoes came out that had little air bubbles in the soles. As you stepped, the air bubble would cushion your feet and then move through a channel to the front of your foot as you rolled off your forefoot. The idea was to provide more cushion to the walker, relieving pain and soreness that so many other shoes left in their wakes.

Those shoes still exist today, but more recently companies like MBT, Z-coil and Gravity Defyer have released footwear that adds even more cushioning to the sole in an attempt to remove as much shock to the body as possible while toning muscles and fixing what ails you. MBT, which stands for Masai Barefoot Technology, even calls themselves the "anti-shoe," claiming improvements in posture and muscle development while providing a more barefoot stride.

It has always baffled me that they claim that they provide an experience akin to walking barefoot. How could a shoe that has a thicker sole provide a more barefoot experience? The whole notion seems inherently counter-intuitive. Heck, people don't say that a walking shoe for a plaster cast is more barefoot, yet that is what MBTs remind me of.

Which one is for a broken leg and which one helps you walk more "barefoot?"

I have three issues with any manufacturer that claims that their shoes fix a problem with the body: First, any research I've seen has been based on comparisons of their products to regular shoes, not to bare feet. The new-fangled footwear is compared to a "baseline" running or walking shoe, which is all well and good except for the fact that each person's foot will react differently to any given shoe than someone else's foot would. Second, all of these shoes are designed, manufactured and marketed based on the same faulty premise that they will fix a problem when they really don't. All they actually do is compensate for it. Big difference. Third and finally, you never hear about how these shoes help the feet. All of their claims talk about improving the legs, hips and/or back. Why do the health of one's feet, the very base of our ambulation, get left out?

Research is a funny animal. The outcomes of your study can be forced in certain directions simply by how you set up the parameters. And let's face it. Shoe companies are in the business of selling shoes. They're going to make sure that whatever research they promote is going to support their claims about their product.

I believe that society's thinking about shoes is approached from the wrong direction. So many people from "experts" to lay people believe that footwear needs to be additive instead of subtractive. Additive thinking assumes that shoes are necessary and that adding features to a particular set of shoes will work to cure an ailment of the body. Subtractive thinking instead presupposes that removing footwear and letting the body act on its own accord is the better approach.

For example, when a runner has an issue with foot, ankle or knee pain, the typical course of action is to analyze how to adjust their shoes in order to fix what was wrong with the combination of the feet in the shoes. By adding an orthotic, arch support, cushioning or other feature, the shoe can be adapted to work better with the runner's physiology. The expected outcome is to counteract whatever dynamics about the feet within the shoes were causing injury.

But what if removing features of the shoe -- or the shoe altogether -- and letting the body's physiology work for itself is the best course of action? Instead of locking the foot in a rigid shoe and making the orthotic, legs and hips do most of the work, you could unlock the feet and allow them to do what they were born to do?

What if, instead of creating a shoe that has springs in the heels to counteract the forces of heel strikes, you work to strengthen the person's own muscles and encourage them to walk with a less forceful foot fall? Instead of a heel strike with every step, the foot is encouraged to flex and use its 26 joints, the ankle and knees to naturally cushion each step via a mid or forefoot strike?

The idea is to literally start from the ground up, something this entire blog is based upon. I believe that most people would do just fine going barefoot most of the time and in most places. They just need to give their own feet a chance. I'll admit that sometimes, even after some strengthening and time, someone may find that an orthotic is necessary due to complications from an injury or other problem. In those cases, why not try a minimalist shoe with whatever simple orthotic is required? Add only what is needed and otherwise let a foot be a foot.

Could it be that our feet would be healthier by subtracting footwear, giving our feet a chance and adding only the most necessary of "support," if needed? I welcome your comments below.

(Please Note: I realize that going barefoot is not a good option for people with conditions such as diabetes that hinder the body's ability to heal and/or fight infection. Anyone with conditions that leave them immuno-suppressed should consult their doctor first before trying a more barefoot lifestyle.)

Juggling Numbers Image: The IP-Kat
Feet Image: The Hub Pages