A Backwards Look at Liability

I've been told on several occasions to be careful how I promote barefoot activity. The concerned persons say I might end up liable if people end up hurting themselves. This is a completely backwards and thoroughly confusing concept to me.

How is it that our society's collective thinking has gotten so twisted that we now believe that I could be liable if people use their feet as nature intended and that shoe companies are free from liability for weakness, stiffness, skin conditions and other ailments that are caused or exacerbated by their products? Do you see how topsy turvy that thinking is?

I wonder how many billions of dollars have been spent in the U.S. in the last half century to pay for the various treatments of ailments caused - or at least exacerbated - by shoes including...

• Arthritis
• Plantar fasciitis
• Fallen arches
• Bunions
• Hammertoes
• Morton's Neuroma
• Corns
• Callouses
• Dry/cracked skin
• Toenail fungus
• Athlete's foot
• Hangnails
• Ingrown toenails
• Stress fractures
• Fractures
• Sprains
• And more!

I assert that a great number of these ailments would have never occurred if people had gone barefoot more. Would injuries have happened to barefoot persons? Sure, but I'd bet it'd be far fewer than many would like to believe and that the overall costs of treating such problems would have been less.

If I would be liable for someone who goes barefoot getting injured, why aren't the shoe manufacturers liable for all the ailments listed above that their products may have caused for their customers?

It would be interesting to see how a class-action lawsuit against shoe companies would play out. Would it be thrown out by a judge? Would the plaintiffs successfully plead their case that shoe companies sold their products knowing full well that they could cause these ailments in customers without warning them of such dangers? Would the defense actually try to convince the court that shoes don't cause any of these ailments or that shoe wearers should have known the risks involved?

This feels a lot like the lawsuits that were successfully brought against the cigarette industry years ago. These huge companies spent loads of money in reparations after they'd been found guilty of duping and damaging the American public to make a buck. Warning labels were required on EVERY pack of cigarettes thereafter. The shoes available for sale and use today are just as bad for the feet as cigarettes are for the lungs, but many people don't know it.

Daniel Howell, PhD, author of The Barefoot Book and a professor of biology, believes that sellers of high heeled shoes should put warning labels on them. I agree. How many women would stop wearing heels if they knew that 20,000 women go to the hospital each year due to heel-related injuries? How many women would stop wearing heels if they knew they were far more likely to develop bunions, hammertoes, Morton's Neuroma, corns and other ailments because of them? Are the high heel manufacturers telling their customers this vital information? NO, but they should be.

If someone wants to sell us footwear or cigarettes, we should go into the purchase knowing what risks are ahead of us. Most importantly, if we want to opt out of using such products, we have every right do so and should not be forced by anyone to use products that will likely cause us some harm.

Worth noting is that no one had to convince anyone else that breathing without smoke in your lungs is a good, natural thing. That said, why does society put the burden of proof on barefooters that going barefoot is good, natural and acceptable behavior? As I've stated on this blog before, barefoot is the baseline. It is the natural condition for our feet, just as breathing non-smoky air is for our lungs. Sure, there are risks involved, but we understand that as part of our human nature. That said, I can't tell you how many barefooters have been told to put on shoes for their "safety."

Imagine if a restaurant manager changed the way you dine for your "safety.":

"Good evening, sir. I see you ordered the steak. Because of that I'm going to have to ask you to wear these protective gloves while you use your steak knife to cut the food. We don't want you cutting yourself. Alisha here will also be making sure that you've chewed each bite thoroughly and that you're not speaking before you swallow each bite. We don't want you choking, after all. Just looking out for your safety!"

When we use a steak knife with bare hands, we know we must be careful lest we get cut. When we eat steak we know we must be careful not to choke. Likewise, when we go barefoot we understand we must be careful not to step on something dangerous or stub our toes. We don't need someone coddling us and protecting us from things we already know and understand! What we DO need is more public education on the harm that shoes are actually doing to our feet.

What do you think? Should shoe manufacturers be held liable for selling the public on products that exacerbate foot ailments? Should shoes come with warning labels? Please let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

Things That Make You Go Hmm...: The Barefoot Edition

One of the most frustrating things for me as a barefooter is that so many of the claims criticizing barefoot activity are made without the critics giving any thought to what they are actually saying. I know that the following observations are a bit snarky and pointed, but they're worth thinking about:

Lots of people have told me that they successfully went barefoot "all the time" as a kid, playing on rocks and gravel, in dirt, and around all kinds of dangerous things. Then they insinuate that the flat, smooth surfaces of the adult world (e.g. concrete, asphalt, tile, linolium and carpet) are too dangerous for going barefoot.

Hmm...

There's a prevalent thought that going barefoot is terribly unsanitary and can spread disease, yet most diseases are spread through direct contact from our hands to our faces, or from face to face. Still, no one insists that we all wear surgical masks and gloves during the height of flu season and no one polices public restrooms to make sure that we've all properly washed our hands when leaving.

Hmm...

Lots of people think it's "gross" or "disgusting" to go barefoot, but then put shoes on that their feet have sweated in day after day and which act as incubators for problems such as athlete's foot and toe fungus.

Hmm...

Going barefoot in a store is supposedly very unsafe and a high risk for injury, yet high heels -- which put 20,000 women a year into hospital ERs and often have no traction at all on their soles -- are acceptable footwear.

Hmm...

Many people claim that they "hate feet" and can't stand the sight of them, yet they're fine when others wear open-toed shoes. It's only when the small amount of shoe material is removed that the sight of the feet is offensive. The exception: bare feet are rarely hated at the pool.

Hmm...

Countless women have told me that they don't go barefoot because they have "sensitive" feet, yet are willing to wear shoes which cause regular pain and blistering in and on their "sensitive" feet.

Hmm...

Podiatrists and other experts say that there's no evidence to support claims that running barefoot leads to less injury. There is also no evidence to support claims that running with standard cushioned shoes causes less injury, yet they are fine recommending those.

Hmm...

Many people think that going barefoot puts feet at a high risk of injury, yet many people regularly close car doors, use sharp steak knives and scissors, light matches and more without wearing protective gloves.

Hmm...

Naysayers claim that there's loads of broken glass, sharp rocks, nails, and even hypodermic needles strewn about all over the place, yet they can never point out where any of it is when asked.

Hmm...

Though many podiatrists say that our bare feet aren't capable of properly supporting us, countless athletes successfully compete barefoot in gymnastics, martial arts, dance, running and more.

Hmm...

Some people believe it's inappropriate for someone to shop a store barefoot, yet customers are regularly allowed with offensive shirts and tattoos, bad body odor, loud children and more.

Hmm...

A common thought is that bare feet may make business floors excessively dirty. A person who regularly goes barefoot cleans their feet at least once a day. People who wear regularly wear shoes rarely, if ever, clean the soles of their footwear.

Hmm...

You know who -- or what -- is allowed barefoot into a store? Service animals. It may be "no shoes, no service" for people, but guide dogs are allowed on the very same unsafe floors AND they cannot be made by management to wear protective booties, per a blog post I wrote a while back.

Hmm...

Speaking of bare feet being inappropriate, it used to be that women should only wear skirts, children should only speak when spoken to and flip flops were only for the pool or shower room. My, how things change.

Hmm...

Do these things also make you go "Hmm..."? Does it give you a different perspective on bare feet? What would you add to the list? Am I off base with some of them? Please leave your comments in the section below.



Image: graur codrin / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

If the Tables Were Turned: Hypothetical Reactions to the New 'Fad' of Shoes

I got to thinking: What if bare feet were the norm and a "fad" got started up in which a small, vocal group of people started wearing shoes all the time. What would experts and the public say about that? Here's what I think:

A business owner: "We don't allow shod customers in our store. There's too much potential for people to get injured, and we would be liable if that happens. What if a woman in those "high-heeled" things rolls her ankle while shopping here? What if someone wearing shoes with a slick sole slips on a wet spot on the floor? I also have to think that those shoes would hurt the exposed toes of someone whose feet got stepped on. Have you seen how big and heavy some of those things are?! I've got to look out for my customers' safety. (Question) What's that? Broken glass? You know, I've worked in this business 12 years and I can't say that a barefoot customer has ever seriously cut themselves. Usually we clean up anything that's dangerous so it's not a big deal. I think we've had one or two customers that got a little piece stuck in their sole like a big splinter, but they just took it right out and went on their way. No bleeding or anything. If they did we'd give them a band-aid. Anyway, the other problem we have with shoes is that nobody ever cleans the outside of them! At least barefoot customers wash their feet every day. Who knows if or when a shod customer has ever cleaned the soles of them? Who knows what they stepped in that's collected on their shoes ever since they bought them? Gross, and my employees have better things to do than constantly clean the floors of all the dirty stuff that shoes drag in."

A running expert: "Adding a shoe to the foot and landing on the heel totally changes the dynamics of running. There's no evidence to suggest that a heel strike is more preferable to a forefoot or midfoot strike when running. It could even be a problem for the joints of the ankles, knees, hips and back, as all of those forces would travel up the skeletal system. I also see a problem with cutting off the sensations from the soles impacting the ground. There are thousands of nerve endings in the feet and these shoe people want to just cut those off? Sounds ridiculous to me. What next? Should we just run with horse blinders on? And paying more than $100 every few months to replace shoes when they wear down seems sketchy. I know a lot of runners that aren't going to make that kind of investment. It just sounds like a scheme from the shoe companies trying to make lots of money."

A podiatrist: "While I think there might be benefits for short periods of time in wearing shoes -- for protection from certain dangers, for example -- there's no research that shows they are better for your feet than simply going barefoot. There's a lot of evidence to the contrary, actually. Some of the shoes that people are wearing pinch the toes together or cram them into the front of the shoe. We're seeing an uptick in our practice of bunions, hammer toes, corns and other afflictions...and they're all from people wearing shoes. We're also seeing a lot of ankle and knee problems because shoes artificially raise the heel of the foot in completely unnatural ways. Lots of our patients -- most of them actually -- also complain of foot soreness, pain and even weakness because the shoes they're wearing are completely inflexible and essentially cast their feet while they have the shoes on. Wearing shoes also provides the perfect environment for growing fungus and other bacteria that need a warm, moist environment to thrive. Finally, wearing shoes on an uneven surface could lead to the shoe catching on the ground and the ankle to roll, causing soft tissue damage or a fracture. I definitely don't recommend that my patients wear shoes unless they have a medical need to or if they need them for protection from some activity they'll be participating in or bad weather. Even then, though, I don't see why a simple, thin sole wouldn't be enough for most things."

Your everyday citizen: "Shoes are so disgusting! Look, people were born barefoot for a reason. We've got all of those joints and bones in our feet and shoddies want to just stick those in a box? Plus, their feet in shoes are always sweaty and it usually causes their feet to stink. Cramming all of my toes together to the point of pain because it "looks good?" Whatever. And who needs protection all the time? It's not like there's broken glass just laying around everywhere. Paranoid weirdos. Just look where you're walking and you'll be fine. And if you step on something that cuts your foot, it's not like our feet are all that fragile or that they can't heal. Oh, here's my biggest thing: Who wants to spend hundreds of dollars constantly buying new shoes?! My feet don't cost anything and they never wear out. I'll spend my money on something else, thanks."

So what do you think? Is this how many people would react if the tables were turned and bare feet were the norm? Do you think I'm way off base with something I wrote? Please let me know your comments in the section below.

Should Podiatrists Give Away High-Heeled Shoes?

I was more than a bit disturbed to discover that a California podiatrist is holding a contest to give away "designer" shoes. On her blog The Shoe Expert's Blog, Michele Colon, DPM, has posted the guidelines for someone to win a pair of shoes from Jimmy Choo or Christian Louboutin by the end of this year, "making one shoe lover’s New Year’s celebration one to remember!"

What's most upsetting is that the shoes she displays on her site are not flats or even low heels. They are VERY high heels that may be stylish, but certainly can't be good for the feet or ankles. Here's a screen capture of the images:

Image from The Shoe Expert's Blog, captured Jan. 13, 2011

I'm not here to pick a fight or disparage Dr. Colon, and I also don't know if the shoes displayed on her blog are the ones she intends to give away. Given the evidence showing how bad high heels are to the feet, however, it seems highly inappropriate for a podiatrist to hold a contest if such shoes will be the prize. To me, it seems like someone who makes a career from healing those with foot and ankle problems should not give away devices that CAUSE foot and ankle problems.

On another front, a podiatrist giving away such dangerous footwear seems like a potential conflict of interests. What if a woman were to wear these, fall, sprain her ankle and then go to Dr. Colon as a patient? That doesn't look good, to say the least.

I recommend that Dr. Colon rethink this contest and her promotion of these kinds of shoes to her patients.

UPDATE (12:24 p.m. CST, Jan. 13, 2011): After becoming aware of this blog entry, Dr. Colon replied back to me on Twitter with the following: "The designer shoes don't have to be high heels. They can be the Jimmy Choo UGGs or other ones. Those were just examples."

Maybe so, but I replied back that just giving the option of high heels seems inappropriate. I also asked that, given that she's in Southern California, how likely is it that the winner would choose flats over high heels? I stand by my previous statements.

Review: Dr. Scholl's For Her Fast Flats

Opening remarks from Barefoot Michael:

I prefer to stay barefoot as much as possible -- even often in public. I find it to be comfortable and even healthy and safe. While my wife, Glenda, is not a "die hard" barefooter like myself, she is accepting of my barefoot lifestyle and tries to stay barefoot as much as possible, too. She doesn't often go barefoot out in public, but still prefers more minimal footwear if she wears shoes.

A new, easily-found minimal shoe is now on the market and targeted to women for wearing after hours in heels. I thought my sweetheart might like to try them as an everyday minimal shoe and asked her to review a pair. The following are her thoughts. Keep in mind that they're from the context of putting them through the paces as a potential everyday minimalist shoe, something that they are NOT marketed as. I'll pop in (with italics) to make little comments or to add more information as necessary.

Dear readers, the lovely Barefoot Glenda:

From Dr. Scholl's for Her
Facebook Page

A while back, my hubby texted me that while at Walgreens I should pick up a pair of Dr. Scholl's For Her Fast Flats. I had seen them advertised on TV, and since I enjoy going barefoot or wearing minimalist footwear I thought I'd give them a try as an everyday minimalist shoe.

Just a little insight into why I don't wear more traditional shoes: About seven years ago I was diagnosed with tendinitis in my toes from wearing shoes that were either too tight or had a heel. The recommendation from the doc was to wear round or square toed flats. I also found as a special education teacher that I needed to be able to wear shoes that I could easily run in. So that is when I stopped wearing most heels and started wear minimalist footwear.

So here is what happened when I wore them and how the shoes held up:

Style

The shoes are a cute ballet slipper type. They have a bow over the toe box and have a leathery feel. There is an elastic band sewn into the top of the heel which allows you to put on and take off the shoes easily. The band also helps the shoes stay on without slipping. The shoes look a lot like many of the other ballet slipper types out there, and most people wouldn't know that they're Fast Flats unless you tell them or they have some of their own. I did notice that Fast Flats only come in black. At least, this only color available where I bought mine. That's not really a problem unless your wanting brown or gray or any other color. ;-)

Quality

I've worn the shoes nearly every day since I purchased them. The quality isn't what I had hoped for. I'm one of those people who keeps shoes as long as I can, and if I really like them, I wear them, A LOT! After having them for just a few weeks, I am disappointed in the quality of the shoes. They are showing wear around the toe box where the sole and body are sewn together. In most places it's just the covering wearing off, but at the ball of my large toe, the seem is actually splitting (pictured below). :-(

Michael here: Keep in mind, however, that these shoes are NOT meant to be regular footwear. They are intended as a "club to car" shoe with limited long-term use. That said, it's not overly surprising that they're not terribly durable, but it's worth noting IF you're considering these for more everyday use.

Cost

The shoes are relatively cost effective (at a suggested price of $12.99 USD), but like I said earlier, I like my shoes to LAST! I also like a good bargain and rarely pay more than $20 for a pair of shoes. (Since I often go barefoot, that doesn't tend to be a problem.) The Fast Flats were $12.50 where I bought them in a suburb of Kansas City. M: Other retailers have been found that sell them for $9.99. Dr. Scholl's does offer a money back guarantee if you're not satisfied with the Fast Flats.

Fit and Comfort

Seeing that these shoes are similar to slippers, I expected them to fit well right away. That's not exactly what happened. At first glance, the Fast Flats appeared to be non-foot specific. When my hubby put them on me, they felt awkward right away and the toe box pinched. After I switched them, I realized they are foot specific and the awkwardness went away. Unfortunately, they still pinched my toes and felt too small for my feet. I normally wear between a 4 and a 6 so I bought the 5/6. I thought it was pretty strange that the shoes felt too small and almost went back to the store to buy the 7/8. I decided to wait and see if the shoes began to feel better with time, and I just needed to "break them in." Even now, my toes feel slightly pinched. I did trim my toe nails (they were not exceeding long) and that helped them feel less tight on the tips of my toes. My feet are pretty average width, and I'm not sure that Fast Flats would fit well on someone with narrow or wide feet. There are a variety of sizes, but I didn't see any that were mad specifically for someone who does not have average foot width.

Barefoot Sensation and Movement

The soles on the Fast Flats are remarkably flexible and thin and yet don't pierce easily. My first real trial wearing the Fast Flats was at my husband's work picnic where the trails were gravel. The soles were thin enough to make it feel almost as though I wasn't wearing shoes at all, yet thick enough to not be pierced by the rocks. When we arrived home that evening, my feet hurt and I chose to wear a different pair of shoes the next day that had a thicker, cushier sole. The sole does have traction on the bottom, and sliding has not been problem like with other footwear. They are also thin enough to feel the different temperatures and wetness.

I wore Fast Flats on a Saturday to one of my husband's races. The pavement was quite warm (80+ degrees F outside) and the soles of my feet felt rather warm too. Not really uncomfortable, but noticeably warm. When shopping in the grocery store, the freezer section made my feet uncomfortably cold. I also accidentally stepped in a puddle which made my foot damp. It wasn't too bad, but somewhat irritating.

Extras

Dr. Scholl's For Her Fast Flats come with a small gold purse that the slippers are literally rolled into cylinders to fit into. This is how the shoes are packaged and how they are purchased. It would be difficult to try these on before purchasing, but as noted earlier, you can receive a full refund if you're not satisfied. You would not, however, have a place to put your heels when switching to Fast Flats as shown in the commercial. The gold purse is stylish and has a small pocket inside perfect for your license and cash. I can fit my cell phone, clip on sun glasses case, and a package of Tic Tacs in mine. My wallet and keys are too big, but I suppose I could take my car and house keys off the ring and slide them in the small pocket as well. The purse has a small wrist handle to make it easier to hang onto it.

Final Words

Honestly, I've never been in the club scene. I'm sure these shoes would be good for giving your feet a break while dancing and clubbing and general indoor use. Since I am usually barefoot indoors, I only really wore the Fast Flats outdoors which is probably why they started to wear in just a few weeks. For me, Fast Flats are ideal for a "back-up" shoe in places where I can't go barefoot. I can simply roll them up in the purse and keep them in my glove compartment to use when the need arises. Fast Flats are a fair quality, cute shoe. I'm not sure they're the best minimalist shoe because of the toe pinching and lack of quality when wearing them out doors.

Barefoot Michael's Final Thoughts

I can't thank my wife enough for reviewing these shoes. I've known of this kind of shoe for a while, but none has been as widely distributed or easily attained as Dr. Scholl's For Her Fast Flats.

From a barefooter's perspective, they really do seem like a good "backup" shoe for when going barefoot isn't allowed. I don't think they'd be great to run in, but I do think they'd be great for a lady to have in her purse or bag in case she gets stopped by the "shoe police" in a store or restaurant. If a woman prefers to wear something into a venue and then remove her shoes, these would fit the bill perfectly as well.

I don't think they're durable enough to wear all day every day if a woman walks or stands a lot for her job, but a woman who does minimal walking around the workplace might find value in them.

One last note: After writing an introduction about Fast Flats on this blog, I was sent several messages from the folks at Footzyrolls, a company that makes a similar product. They vigorously promoted their own product and accused Dr. Scholl's of stealing their idea. Pointing fingers aside, the reason I wanted to post a review of Fast Flats is because they are inexpensive and so widely available. Granted, Footzyrolls offer many different styles of the rollable flat, but Fast Flats are available pretty much EVERYWHERE and for less money. Whereas you can go down to your local drug store or Walmart and pick up Fast Flats for just about one Alexander Hamilton, Footzyrolls can only be ordered on their site and start at about twice the cost.

Have you tried the Dr. Scholl's Fast Flats? Footzyrolls? Both? Do you think you'd be willing to go barefoot more often if you could carry these around as a "backup" shoe if needed? At about $10-13 a pop, is it worth it to buy these to use until they are worn out and then buy another? Please leave your comments in the section below. Thanks for reading!

Dr. Scholl's Introduces Fast Flats

NOTE: My wife has posted her full review of these shoes.

Dr. Scholls, a company known for their wide range of foot products, has introduced a line of light, thin, rollable footwear for women called Fast Flats. In an video advertisement on their Facebook page, they promote the slippers as "flats in a flash" -- an option for women who are tired of wearing their heels. They reportedly go for $12.99 USD and are available at Walgreen's stores (and likely others, too, but Walgreen's tends to be barefoot friendly).

I've heard of footwear like this before, but they were distributed by vending machines in Europe. I've been hoping that a company here in the U.S. would release something like it, and it looks that time has come.

While I'm still a staunch proponent of people going barefoot first, there are times when minimal footwear is a better idea. This especially applies in situations like the workplace where shoes are often required. Fast Flats seem like they might fit the bill.

I'm going to buy a pair of these for my wife, Glenda. She likes to go barefoot, but is prone to wear some kind of footwear in public. I'd like to get her opinions on how well they fit, their durability and overall effectiveness as a minimal shoe option.

NOTE: My wife has posted her full review of these shoes.

It's disappointing that there's nothing like this for men. Here's hoping Dr. Scholl's or someone else comes up with something. For now, at least the better half of the population can get some relief from regular footwear.

What do you think of this product? Ladies, would you buy these? Please let me know in the comments section.

Are Your Dress Shoes and Flip Flops Causing Your Running Injuries?

Pardon me for this post. I had a sort of epiphany a while back and I need to "think out loud." Please read this with the understanding that I don't have many answers, just questions. But sometimes you have to ask the right questions to get the right answers, don't you?

I've talked a lot on Twitter and in this space about barefoot running. I, as a barefooter and barefoot runner, subscribe to the idea that running without footwear -- or at most, minimal footwear -- is the best thing at preventing injuries from running.

But what if all this talk about a forefoot strike vs. heel strike, pronation, arch support, etc. pitting running shoes against feet is missing the mark? What if the core reason for most running injuries has very little to do with what a runner wears on their feet or how they land? After all, there are runners who are happy to step forward and say that they've never been hurt while wearing trainers. There are people who can go for months at a time wearing the same kinds of running shoes before they get hurt. What's with that?

Could it be that running shoes -- or lack thereof -- are NOT a major factor in runners getting hurt?

What if runners get injured because of all their shoes? It's entirely possible that stuffing our feet into stiff, constricting dress shoes with elevated heels at work five days of the week -- six if you dress up for church -- wearing gait-altering flip flops when it's nice out and any other various kinds of footwear put your feet in unnatural situations can have a collective effect on our bodies.

Consider this: A young woman who eats healthy has a full-time job that requires her to dress in business attire. She goes to work five days a week and usually wears a pair of high heels. Her health is important to her, so after work three days of the week she heads out for a run and averages about five to six miles per run. She varies her courses, from trails to the high school track. After work one Friday, she goes straight home to prep for a night out shopping with the girls instead of running. She dresses casually and throws on a pair of flip flops. Saturday morning is her long run while training for a half marathon that's still a few weeks away. She runs a steady seven miles before donning her flip flops again to run errands. Not long after this, she ends up with really painful plantar fasciitis (PF) that nags her for a very long time. She ends up running the half, but she hurts through most of it.

The big question: What caused the PF?*

A podiatrist, sports doctor or magazine might tell you that she increased her mileage too fast, has poor foot structure and/or that she's wearing the wrong running shoes. The recommended course of treatment might be to keep the running shoes but add an orthotic and have her wear a night-time splint while she sleeps.

In this fake scenario and so many other real-life situations, maybe the running shoes aren't the problem at all. It could be that the combination of her toes being smashed together in heels at work all week, her achilles being shortened by the angle of her ankle wearing the heels, and the biomechanics involved in keeping flip flops on her feet while walking all have a cumulative effect in messing her body up so that when she runs in trainers it hurts. Maybe all that stuff is what really caused the PF and then the mechanics of running made it jump to the fore.

A magician (intentionally) does this kind of thing all the time. While you're watching him make a fuzzy ball disappear in his left hand, you're not paying attention to the fact that he's already putting it in his jacket pocket with the right hand. Your attention is in the wrong place. It sure seems like he made the ball disappear when there was actually something else going on out of sight and out of mind the whole time.

Now, I don't want to imply that podiatrists, sports doctors and so many other experts are using medical sleight of hand to make money when they know full well what the "real" problem is. I'm actually wondering if we're all just missing the big picture here. Maybe what we see happening is an unintentional diversion from what's happening just out of our vision.

It could be that fixing a problem with the foot by conventional means doesn't address the real problem: All the various footwear that we put on our feet on an everyday basis could have a cumulative effect in messing us up. If you really think about it, it seems reasonable that you can't consistently shove your foot into a cramped, stiff space or make it do unnatural stuff most every day of your life and expect it to come out perfect when you want to really make it perform.

As you probably know, I recently finished up treatment for a stress fracture in my left heel. I was non-weight-bearing and wore a cast boot for the good part of six weeks to fix it. I did physical therapy to get me back to the point where my body can now run again. I needed that therapy because I was not properly balanced. My left leg atrophied a lot due to my injury.

Scratch that. No, it didn't.

I didn't go through PT because of my stress fracture. I did it because of the effects of the treatment for my stress fracture. Being off my foot and keeping my lower leg so immobilized caused my leg muscles to atrophy and my whole body to be out of whack.

If that happened to my leg because of consistent use of crutches and the boot, doesn't it make some sense that regular use of restrictive, gait-altering footwear could throw our bodies out of whack as well? I realize that we're talking various degrees and types here. Someone who is non-weight-bearing will have different negative effects than a woman who wears heels every day to work. The point is that it's probably incredibly short-sighted to just blame running shoes for running injuries.

I'm sure that there are many podiatrists and other doctors who address these lifestyle issues when someone comes in for treatment. I know that there are podiatrists who realize the negative effects of high heels on women's feet. But I've also read comments from many experts who essentially throw their hands up and say, "Well, women are going to wear heels so we have to find creative ways to address their foot problems."

To me that seems like telling a smoker, "We know you're going to smoke, so here's cigarettes that aren't as bad for you," when we should be shouting from the mountaintops, "STOP SMOKING! It is bad for you! Don't do it!"

Maybe we, as a society, need to stand up and say that heels, stuffy shoes and flip flops aren't worth it. Our feet are too important to keep screwing them up all the time in the name of fashion, protection or any of the other excuses we've come up with for needing stupid shoes all the time.

It's possible that after looking further into this, we might find that people who don't get injured as much while running don't subject themselves to confining shoes on a regular basis. We might find that all the nasty shoes we wear are the actual cause of many bio-mechanical problems with our bodies when running.

I admit that it would be nearly impossible to ever scientifically prove these theories to be true. There's too many variables. You couldn't compare apples to apples since each person works different jobs, walks on different surfaces, wears different shoes, weighs different weights, has different sized feet and the list goes on. Measuring long-term effects under controlled conditions would be infeasible.

That said, there is one constant for each person: Our own two feet. We wake up and go to sleep with the same feet each day. We've had them since we were born and, barring terrible circumstances, we'll have them until we pass away. Doesn't it seem like it's at least worth considering that our own two feet are optimized for each one of us and should generally stay free of shoes? Doesn't it make sense to do as little as necessary to protect or adjust them, but otherwise let them act on their own accord? Many barefooters including myself would answer yes to both of those questions.

Barefooters have discovered that we in civilized society really don't need shoes all the time. The surfaces on which we walk aren't covered in as much broken glass, used needles, viruses, feces or other nasty things as many people would like to believe. The man-made carpet, tile and paved surfaces that so much of our world is covered in is really very safe to walk on without shoes. Our green spaces are usually well kept and free of hidden dangers. If cuts or other injuries occur, our feet are very resilient at healing and moving on.

Have you run successfully for a long time while wearing trainers? If so, what do you wear when you're not running? Is it possible that the shoes most people wear on a regular basis are the cause of running injuries and NOT the sneakers themselves? Are the best "shoes" for us no shoes at all? Is it possible to turn the tide on terrible footwear like high heels and convince people to take better care of their feet through better footwear or no footwear at all? I welcome your comments below.

* - I realize that this scenario is fictitious. I realize that you may not agree with how the scenario played out. My point was to come up with a story that could happen at some point in Anytown, USA to use for illustrative purposes. Don't miss the bigger picture of the post by getting hung up on, "That wouldn't actually happen."

Weak, Misshapen Thinking

I always get a kick out of it when I hear some podiatrist talk about how our feet need arch supports or that some shoe is going help with pronation, supination or some other nation. The general message is that our feet are weak. Who cares that we were born without shoes? We cannot live effectively without our feet being supported, right?

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:

(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?