Studies? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Studies (to Live Barefoot)!

One bit of opposition I keep hearing from podiatrists and other experts who oppose barefoot activity is that there isn't enough evidence to support it. Studies have not been able to show that going barefoot is better for you than wearing shoes.

Now wait just a minute.

Photo: Podiatry Today

Does anyone ever say "We don't have enough research to prove it's better to breathe environmental air rather than from an oxygen tank."

No one ever says "The evidence is inconclusive whether living without a neck brace is better than regular use of one."

Ever heard someone say, "Until we have evidence that going barehanded is more beneficial, best practice will be to recommend regular use of gloves."

See where I'm going with this?

I was in a Twitter conversation today with a barefoot supporter who said of the lifestyle, "We just need hard science to back it up, not just anecdotes." Many barefooters feel this way. My response?

No, actually we don't.

Really, since when do we need scientific evidence to use an inborn part of our bodies? How in the world did our society's thinking about feet become so "bass ackwards" that footwear supersedes our natural condition when it comes to the scientific burden of proof?

The feet we were born with are the baseline, friends. Why should we be forced to prove that we should be able use them the way they are?

We don't have studies showing why we should go barefoot, but we really don't need them. Barefoot is what we already are.

The onus is on those who claim we can't go barefoot. If footwear makes feet so much safer against injury, prove it. If arch supports improve the long-term health of the feet versus feet that never wear shoes, prove it.

This method of showing proven benefit over our innate condition has worked in other areas of the body:

• Prescription glasses and contact lenses alter our natural condition and improve our sight.
• Orthodontics effectively straighten the teeth and assist with their proper alignment.
• Cochlear implants give hearing ability to those who've lost it or never had it.
• Hip or knee replacement surgery gives pain-free mobility back to those who suffer from degeneration in these joints.

These results are proven. What's more, doctor's don't recommend those therapies above if you have 20/20 vision, straight teeth, you can hear, and/or your joints are fine.

On the flip side, listed below are a few widely-accepted results of healthy people regularly wearing footwear (and, I think, reasons that "experts" are reluctant to approach foot health from the baseline of our human condition):

• Footwear -- even sandals -- raises the temperature of the feet, causing sweating and providing optimal conditions for fungal growth.
• Shoes often squeeze or rub the feet in harmful ways, exacerbating or causing conditions such as bunions, hammer toes, neuromas, corns, blisters, and more.
• The soles of footwear block the feet from feeling textures and objects on the ground below (exteroception), eliminating our natural safety mechanisms and altering our ability to sense where our feet are in space (proprioception).

So we have a good idea about why we shouldn't wear shoes. Despite those issues above and so many more, podiatrists and other experts around the world still recommend that people regularly wear shoes and "avoid going barefoot."

"BUT WAIT!," you may shout. "What if we do find a problem with the feet that needs fixing? What if someone goes barefoot all of the time and still has fallen arches, plantar fasciitis, bunions or something else that orthotics or surgery could help with?"

In those cases, yes, research to discover the best therapy would be warranted -- and those data exist. Even still, it seems to me that the goal would be to use whatever physical therapy, bracing, taping, orthotics, or even surgery that can help rehabilitate their feet so that that going barefoot can continue as the default condition.

"BUT WAIT ONE MORE TIME!," you may shout. "Those with peripheral neuropathy and Raynaud's clearly shouldn't go barefoot in certain conditions because it could create a health risk for them. Footwear is the only therapy that can't prevent serious problems."

Look, I get it that living barefoot isn't the end-all be-all for everyone. I get it that it truly isn't advisable for some select people to be barefoot in specific circumstances.

The bottom line is that the burden of proof lies with those who think footwear, orthotics, arch supports, braces, taping, etc. is inherently better for everyday living than our own two feet. While these things can provide therapeutic relief from specific medical conditions, they should not be considered for long-term, everyday use. What's more, everyday use of footwear has been shown to be detrimental and each person should think critically about whether remaining barefoot -- the human condition -- might be the best option until proven otherwise.

Thoughts on a Podiatrist's Facebook Post

This week I was taken aback by a post that a podiatrist put on Facebook and subsequently tweeted:

Post by Hai-En Peng, DPM.

What I find most shocking is that every single one of those ailments certainly happened because shoes caused those pathologies in the feet.

Dr. Steve Bloor, barefooter and podiatrist in the UK, has said on a number of occasions that he thinks a significant amount of foot pathology is caused or exacerbated by shoes.

Yet podiatrists often recommend that people never go barefoot. They claim that feet need support, bare feet will acquire athlete's foot or nail fungus, and unprotected feet are simply at too great a risk of injury.

I don't have a problem with podiatrists and their profession. I think they serve an important purpose, but how about we, as a society, give our own bare feet a chance to be strong and flexible on their own. If injury occurs, then podiatrists can help us get back on our own two (bare) feet.

Dr. Bloor, told me in an interview a few years ago that, "I now believe the foot is well designed for supporting itself and the rest of the body if it is given a chance to do so without being hindered by footwear."

The answer to foot problems like bunions, neuromas, hammer toes, and the like is not fixing them, then putting those feet back into shoes. As the Barefoot Alliance says, "Barefoot is human." Constant shoe use is not a characteristic of how we are made to function.

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.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Barefootedness

On the 4th of July each year, the people of the United States of America celebrate Independence Day, the anniversary of the signing of The Declaration of Independence on the same date in 1776. Although an official constitution was not ratified until 11 years later, we Americans generally think of July 4th as the anniversary of our country's founding.

Patriotic toes!
Courtesy: Elizabeth McCullough

Freedom is something we hold dear and do not take lightly in the U.S. Our country was founded on the basic principle of having the rights to say and do as you please (so long as it is within the law). Ask any American and they'll tell you that, for all of our country's flaws, this is still the best place to live in the world. I do believe that...to an extent. Why? Going barefoot in this country is a freedom that many of us do NOT have -- not really.

Americans have a deep relationship with -- even addiction to -- shoes. As much as women complain about how much heels hurt their feet, many would never think of giving them up. For many groups, the shoes they wear are a status symbol among their peers. Like addicts with a drug, most Americans feel like they need shoes. Footwear has become a part of our identities and influences how we feel about ourselves. They've become a prophylactic antibiotic that we've become convinced we will suffer without. The problem is that this country's addiction to shoes has led us to believe in inappropriate distortions and perversions of key biomechanical functions of our bodies.

Even though the Declaration of Independence says each one of us is endowed by our creator with the "unalienable" rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," our shoe-centric society has declared that those rights are at the discretion of others when it comes to our feet. Even though feet are not considered "private" areas of the body and going barefoot would bring no real harm or liability to anyone else, we somehow do not have the liberty to live in the way we feel is best for our own bodies.

There's Just No Justice

Though it's perfectly legal to drive, shop or dine barefoot almost everywhere in this country, the prevailing assumption is that it is illegal. It's all not true! Because these myths are so prevalent, they've percolated down into the collective of social norms so that many people now are convinced that it's wrong to go without shoes. It's widely thought that going barefoot -- that is, making the choice to not wear foreign objects on our bodies -- is unsafe, unhealthy, unhygienic and inappropriate. Because of that, we who prefer to live barefoot are often discriminated against by friends, family, business managers and more.

The scales of "justice" for bare feet.

That "and more" includes discrimination by the courts. Bob Neinast, a barefooter in Ohio, has actually brought suit against public facilities in his state for disallowing his bare feet and has subsequently LOST each one of the cases. The courts ruled that going barefoot is dangerous enough that the facilities have a right to bar their patrons from going without shoes. These rulings have been made without any legal or scientific evidence to back them up. These are obviously judges who carry the same biases against feet as so many others in our country.

It doesn't make sense. Where's the real "justice," here? The Declaration of Independence says I should have these freedoms and the 10th Amendment of The Constitution ultimately leaves all this up to the states "or to the people." No state has made illegal the practice of going barefoot, so I should be in the clear because the right belongs to the people - of which I am one - right?

One could argue that business proprietors also have a right to pursue their own happiness -- a happiness that may come partially from having all their patrons keep their shoes on so that they don't get hurt and the owner doesn't get sued. I wonder, though: Who ultimately gets to decide that a business proprietor's rights supersede my individual right to not wear shoes? What if the establishment is a public institution whose purpose is to serve the people (e.g. a public library, courthouse, city hall, capitol building, etc.)? All of Bob Neinast's lawsuits have rightfully argued that these tax-funded institutions should not be biting the hand that feeds them and have no reason to deny people entry simply because they are without shoes. Likewise, you'd think that most businesses wouldn't take issue with a paying barefoot customer so long as they're not putting others at risk. Does the danger of allowing customers go barefoot really rank worse than losing their money and helping your bottom line?

The Realities of Risk

I've heard all the ill-conceived reasons to deny people the ability to go barefoot into an establishment. There's a widespread belief that walking barefoot inside a store or restaurant is an enormous risk to the feet and has the potential for significant injury. In all actuality, the risks in going barefoot are very low - much lower than other activities, actually, that are allowed by various establishments. There is rarely any broken glass or super infectious disease just laying about, especially the kinds that can cause serious injury.

When you take a close look at what patrons of most establishments are allowed to do, it's surprising that bare feet are what get banned for "safety" reasons. There are no other social norms, legal precedents, or identifiable risk concerns that require the constant restriction or "protection" of ongoing biological systems like those for the feet:

• Hand Function: Restaurants do not require that diners wear protective gloves when using a fork or steak knife. Diners are expected to be careful and try not to cut themselves. Establishments (except for specific areas of some hospitals) do not require that patrons wear surgical gloves on property to avoid the risks associated with communicable diseases. Individuals take on the risks of being infected when in public places. Library patrons aren't expected to wear gloves to protect against paper cuts when flipping through books. It's expected that they take on those risks.
• Respiratory Function: Establishments (except for specific areas of some hospitals) do not require that patrons wear protective masks to avoid the risks associated with communicable diseases. A social norm exists that individuals take on the risks of being infected when in public places. Gas stations don't require that customers who fill up their cars wear gas masks to protect against noxious gasoline fumes. Everyone involved understands that the risk of inhaling such things is part of the process.
• Neck Function: Amusement parks do not require people to wear neck braces on roller coasters or bumper cars. (In fact, I can tell you from my experience working a roller coaster years ago that riders with neck braces would not be allowed) Policies are posted that you take on the risk of injury by riding such things. Car manufacturers do not require that drivers and passengers in their vehicles wear neck protection as part of the safety features in case of a collision. A social norm exists that people take on the risk of being injured if a collision occurs.
• Hearing: Concert and auto racing venues do not force attendees to wear ear plugs for their own safety even though these events can get to volumes that are dangerous for the hearing. Concert goers and racing fans understand that by participating, they take their hearing into their own...ears.
• Eyesight: Outdoor venues do not require on sunny days that their guests wear sunglasses for their eyes' protection. People understand that they take responsibility for their own eye health.

Are the risks from going barefoot so much worse than those from the activities above? Is the potential for impaired hand function, lung infection, neck pain, hearing loss and cataracts so much less objectionable than a cut to the foot?

Biology's Best

One natural - but very controversial - biological function has had to be protected by law to prevent discrimination against those who practice it. Even with legal protection, breastfeeding is still looked upon poorly by many in our society. In fact, many mothers hesitate to use their right to breastfeed in public even with the protections afforded by law in almost every state. As I blogged about in June 2010 ("Exposing Another Healthy Taboo"), going barefoot and breastfeeding both have many health benefits and are legal in public, but both also have a prudish stigma attached to them. One is frequently protected by law, but the other is not. Do the health benefits of breastfeeding far outweigh the benefits from going barefoot?

The hands and feet are both unique sections of the body that serve important and specific biomechanical functions. Just as a core element of our hands is to feel, grasp, move and use objects, our feet serve a critical function in our ability to stand, feel, balance, walk and climb objects (like stairs, for example). Both hands and feet have a large number of bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, joints and nerve endings that are used to carry out these jobs. Blocking our feet from feeling the ground, a process called exteroception, stifles an important and significant biomechanical system that aids the body in balance and danger avoidance. Reducing foot flexibility by requiring footwear increases the likelihood for tightened soft tissues and foot stiffness.

For each establishment that requires shoes on our feet, it forces the equivalent of gloves on our hands, masks on our faces, braces on our necks, plugs in our ears and shades on our eyes. By denying us - heck anyone - the ability to choose what is best for our own bodies, we are being denied something that was "endowed" to us by our creator - or nature, if you so choose. It's one thing for a person to choose for themselves to wear shoes - that, too, is a liberty afforded in this country - but it's another when a person is denied entry to a business, church or publicly-owned facility only because they prefer to go shoeless.

The Pursuit of Protection

I assert that going barefoot should be legally protected from an establishment's ability to set codes of conduct or attire. We have a natural biomechanical right to go barefoot and take on the risks associated with it. It's an issue of health and personal liberty. Just as laws have been established to protect the biological functions of breastfeeding women and their babies, laws should be put in place to protect the biomechanical functions of bare feet. It's the right thing to do. Realize that dress codes dictating what kind of pants can't be worn or prohibiting certain kinds of hats is not in the same vain as this issue. This is a matter directly related to protecting key systems of the human body.

My fear is that we could see a very appreciable and negative backslide for the barefooting movement if these issues aren't proactively tackled now. Many of my readers may disagree with me, but I believe that the increase in barefoot activity that we're seeing could lead to the tables turning against us. In some ways they already have because of the precedents set in the court decisions mentioned earlier. We don't want court precedents discriminating against barefoot activity to continue, that is for certain.

Going forward, I will begin pursuing the legal and legislative intricacies related to all this. Through my own efforts and the collective backing of The Primalfoot Alliance, we barefooters will hopefully soon be able to see significant positive change in support of the barefoot lifestyle. I don't know where this road will ultimately lead. I hope it doesn't end in disappointment at every curve. With the arguments I've laid out above, I hope to present a solid case to attorneys and legislators that protecting bare feet is the right thing to do. It's a pursuit of happiness that should be protected.

What do you think? Should barefoot activity be protected by law? Am I off base by comparing bare feet to other biomechanical systems of the body or even breastfeeding? What do you think needs to be done in the U.S. to press the issue of greater barefoot acceptance and less discrimination? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

Report: The 38th Annual Hospital Hill Run (Half Marathon)

On June 4, 2011, I ran in and completed the half marathon (13.1-mile) course of the 38th Annual Hospital Hill Run (HHR) while totally barefoot. If this race report was made up of only that sentence it would sound kind of impressive but only tell a tiny part of the story. The HHR was a beast of a race that I went into somewhat unprepared and came out of well educated.

Training

Ever since I registered for the race in late 2010 I had the finish line in sight. I had run distances as long as a 10K (6.2 miles) up to then, but the half marathon distance was one I felt that needed to be tackled on my way to my "bucket list" item of completing a full marathon in my lifetime. Though I'd heard and read that HHR is one of the tougher halves in the whole U.S., I decided I was up for the challenge. All I had to do was train smart so as not to get hurt and consistently look toward the prize of crossing that finish line.

Everything was going well with my training until I got a flare-up of tendinitis in my right big toe a few weeks out from HHR. I can only speculate why it happened, but I figure that my form and overdoing it contributed to the problem. It made it somewhat painful to run on but not to the point that I felt I was in any danger. Still, I consulted with my running friends on dailymile and they recommended that I rest it as much as possible. I took their advice -- sort of. I cut back on my running a lot but still worked on getting the long runs in on the weekends. It was only when, lifting my toe upward, I could feel the friction of my soft tissues grinding against each other because of the inflammation that I finally backed off significantly and ramped up my intake of anti-inflammatories. With a week or two left until the race, my toe was back to normal. That said, it ended up that the longest run I'd had prior to the half marathon was an 8.77-mile run two weeks prior. I wondered if that was quite enough.

The Start of the Race

On the morning of the run I had a bowl of Chocolate Cheerios, a banana nut Gowalla bar and a Gatorade Prime drink. I washed it all down with a good helping of water -- or what I thought was. More on that later.

I left the house early in order to arrive and have plenty of time before the 7 a.m. gun. I hadn't even left the parking garage when I heard my first comment about my bare feet. "So are you doing this barefoot?" I replied in the affirmative. "Okay!," the man said. I got to the race area, used a porta-john, donned my fuel belt full of mango-flavored Gatorade (yum!), checked my bag and started warming up with dynamic stretching.

After chatting with some other racers -- including a few familiar faces -- lined up and got ready to race with the huge mass of bodies in the starting chute. I figured I'd finish in about 2 hours, 40 minutes, so I lined up near that pace marker. We were all warm. Not only was there a lot of body heat with us all crammed in shoulder to shoulder, but the temperature at the start of the race was already 78 degrees Fahrenheit. God help us all.

I started out the race at what I thought was a "slow" pace. I'd heard over and over that you don't want to start a race too fast, so I was trying not to. My goal was to average about 12:00 to 12:30-minute miles over the course of the 13.1 miles. About a 1/4 mile in I looked at my Garmin Forerunner 305 and saw that I was running a 10:48 mile! Holy crap! I don't hardly feel like I'm moving at all and I'm running at 10:48? Oh boy. I eased up even more and managed a more manageable pace.

Another piece of advice I'd heard was to not blow through the early aid stations. Stop and hydrate because you'll need it later on. I heeded the advice and took Gatorade and water. "I'll save my personal stash for later," I thought. The miles began to add up and I hydrated on what I thought was a good schedule.

The Walking Begins

Although my goal was to actually run the entire race, I found myself needing to take a walking break at about 5.2 miles in. This was on a hill next to the UMKC campus that raised 132 feet in 0.6 miles. Once to the top I ran for more than another mile.

My wife's picture of me
at the 7-mile mark.

I didn't think that my wife and kids were going to make it out to the race to cheer me on. Our church was holding a Father's Day brunch (two weeks early) that morning and my father-in-law really wanted for my family to be there. Our son also really wanted to see grandpa. So the plan was that my wife and kids would go to that, because the logistics of getting them out to the race and then to the brunch was going to be too difficult. Even so, my wife surprised me by bringing the kids out to cheer me on at about the 7-mile mark. That was a nice surprise and gave me a bit of a mental boost.

I also got to spend some time talking to a fellow runner, Greg Vaughn. Greg's known for carrying an American flag with him on his runs. It's to raise awareness for all the emergency responders who serve our country each and every day. I'd chatted with him at a few previous events, so we knew each other somewhat. Chatting with him helped make some of the walking more tolerable.

Just after the 8-mile marker I noticed that I had some blistering starting on my right big toe. For whatever reason, my gait when barefoot makes that exact spot prone to blistering on my longer runs. I ended up having to put some athletic tape on the pad of the toe to help keep it from getting any worse. It's a strategy that has worked well in the past and also worked well at the HHR. I really need to take a look at what's causing the blistering in the first place, though.

The run/walk intervals continued for a while and became a little more frequent each time. I was hot, I was tired because I'd pushed my early pace a little too much, and I now know that my hydration was messed up.

The Wheels Fall Off

Disappointment started to set in as I realized that the race I wanted to run had fallen out of reach. Not only was I not running the whole race, but the pace groups for 2:40 and 2:45 had passed me. What's more, I noticed that my hands were starting to swell up some. My wedding ring fits me well, so when my fingers swell to the point that I can't take it off then I know there's an issue.

By mile 10, I didn't want
to finish, even if I knew
that I was going to.

I was approaching the Country Club Plaza and the dreaded "Broadway Hill" at the 10-mile marker when I began really feeling like I didn't want to be out there anymore. I was going to finish, but I didn't want to. I was hot. I was tired. My hands were swollen. My stomach had a knot in it and I just wasn't enjoying it anymore. I had been out there for just more than two hours and had managed a 12:52/mi. pace. I had gone a mile longer than I'd ever gone before and I wished I could just quit. But I didn't.

For the next half an hour and almost two miles, I walked. I trudged up the nearly 150 feet of the Broadway hill's incline. At some point along the way I met up with Greg again. I told him about my fingers and he told me that if we were running an ultra the medics would pull me out. Essentially, I'd messed up my hydration by drinking too much Gatorade and not enough water, and he told me that I needed to lay off the Gatorade and just drink water from then on. Drink only water until I could pee again. So I did.

What was interesting was that I never felt lightheaded or stopped sweating. I know that those are tell-tale signs of dehydration, but they never showed up. It seems to me that I was hydrated well enough but just had too much sodium in my system, a condition called hypernatremia. What's interesting is that runners often suffer from the opposite effect of not having enough sodium in their system, hyponatremia. By trying to hydrate well, I overdid it to some extent. I never found the right "cocktail" mixture of water to salt intake.

The Finish Line

The finish line! Greg was
right behind me carrying
his American flag.

Greg and I walked the last hill to the 12.4-mile mark and it was all downhill from there. We went for it. We ran the rest of the way in. After a grueling three miles of personal disappointment, I finished strong. In that last 3/4 of a mile I ran an 11:14/mi. pace...and it felt good to finally cross that finish line. It may have taken me three hours and two minutes, but I FINISHED!

After I'd been given my bottle of water and medal I just about broke down in tears. That was certainly the roughest race I'd ever run. Certainly, it was the longest, but mentally it drained me. Looking back it'd be easy to say that should have pushed myself more. I could have found ways to be more motivated and run more of the areas I walked. Maybe so, but in the moment I felt I was doing well just walking, walking, walking toward that finish line. When I got tired of being out there at the 10-mile marker I could have just thrown in the towel, but I didn't.

All things considered, I'm proud of myself and I learned a lot. I set a goal when it was still cold out to run this race on a warm June morning. I persevered and fulfilled my goal to do the whole race barefoot. I got the same medal that the first-place finisher did. And next time I run Hospital Hill -- or any half marathon -- again, I'll know better about how to pace myself, hydrate properly and push beyond my perceived limits. I'll also have a pretty good chance of setting a new personal record!

Barefoot Likely Better Than Shoes If You Step on a Nail

A common argument against going barefoot is that one might step on a nail and it could go straight into the sole of your foot. By wearing shoes, many people believe, you can protect your soles from such puncture injuries. On the surface this seems like sound advice, but when you look more closely at the issue you'll discover that it's probably just best to take your chances barefoot.

Some "protection."
(Image: Cirris Systems)

Before I write any further, it's important to remember that nails can pierce into the feet even if someone is wearing footwear. Construction workers experience this a lot - especially those involved in demolition work. Closer to home, I recently had a friend post on Facebook the following status: "How worried should I be that my 5 year old stepped on a nail outside? Went through his flip flop and made him bleed. Says it's still hurting this morning..." The flip flop was likely intended as a protection for his feet but failed at its job. Some people might say that if he'd gone barefoot the injury could have been even worse. I disagree and here's why:

First, stepping on a nail while barefoot does not automatically mean you'll get a puncture wound. Because each foot has 200,000 nerve endings in its sole, our bodies are exceptional at reacting to painful stimuli beneath us and reacting accordingly. It's like pulling your hand away from a hot pan on the stove. Almost before we can realize it our body's natural systems have kicked in to protect us from harm. If we begin to step on a nail or other sharp object while barefoot, our feet - if flexible enough - can mold around the offending item and/or pull away before much damage is done. I'm not saying that a puncture wound won't happen, but it could be far less deep and serious without shoes.

Keep in mind that when we wear shoes, almost all sensation of the ground below us is blocked. Our bodies cannot react until the offending object has already pierced through the layer(s) of sole material in the shoe and by then it's too late. We've already begun to put so much force down that a puncture is all but guaranteed. Likewise, the material of the shoe holds the nail or other object in place! We can't take the foot out of the shoe until we've pulled out the nail or destroyed the shoe. If, while stepping down, we sense that the nail is there and then try to step away from it we can't.

Shoe material partially
removed from around a nail
in boy's foot.
Image: Cline's Family Blog

Secondly, a nail that is stepped on barefoot is likely to be less harmful than one stepped on with shoes due to a lack of additional foreign material that can enter the wound. If a person does puncture the foot with a nail while unshod, pretty much the only thing going into the foot is the nail. On the flip side, a nail that has already punctured through a shoe's material(s) may end up depositing fragments of that material inside the foot. Depending on the shoes, this may include rubber, foam, fabric and/or glue. What's more, any contamination that has occurred to that material via mud, animal excrement, foot sweat or various forms of bacteria may also go inside the foot as well. If foreign contaminants are left inside the foot and the wound heals around them, it could cause infection and other problems long into the future. For diabetics or others who have difficulty with wounds healing, this can be especially bad.

Let's be clear: I'm not saying that going barefoot keeps you from stepping on sharp objects like nails. I'm also not saying that shoes won't protect against such objects -- they obviously will to some extent. What I am saying is that my chances while barefoot seem no worse than with shoes. In fact, I feel like there's a better chance of avoiding some puncture wounds and further complications by going barefoot instead of wearing shoes. All things considered, I'll just go barefoot, be careful and let the chips fall as they may. I'm up to date on my tetanus shot, and that's what's really important. It's a good idea for anyone.

We should remember that for most people, stepping on a nail is not a risk to life or limb* and doesn't prevent you from going barefoot again in the future. Stuff happens. I stepped on a nail while barefoot in our house as a kid. It hurt. There was a lot of drama around the experience. I moved on, though. I grew up and became a barefooter who realizes that risks are out there, but the rewards of living unshod are so much greater.

What do you think? Have you ever stepped on a nail, whether barefoot or shod? If so, do you think the situation would have been worse if you'd had your feet the other way? Has some past injury made you skiddish about going barefoot more often? Please leave any and all comments you have in the section below.


* - People with difficulty healing wounds or with peripheral neuropathy should take extra caution to keep floors clear of debris and clean as a way to prevent potentially-catastrophic injury. Always consult with your doctor about the wisdom of barefoot activity in relation to your condition(s).

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.

An Interview with a Podiatrist and 'Barefoot Advocate,' Dr. Steve Bloor

While there are many of us lay people out there who embrace unshod living, it's rare to find people in the medical profession who are supportive of such activity. Medical providers like podiatrists and sports orthopedists tend to have a very shoe-centric way of thinking about the role of feet and our locomotion.

A while back I ran across the Twitter account of Steve Bloor, DPodM, SRCh, HPC, a podiatrist in the United Kingdom. Using the Twitter handle @NaturalFeet, Dr. Bloor was posting "tweets" that promote barefoot activity as a way to have healthy feet. How refreshing! After getting to know him a bit, I asked if he'd be amenable to an interview on this blog. He graciously accepted.

The following are his responses to my questions. I think they offer an interesting insight into the field of podiatry and how it approaches feet and barefoot activity. (Note: Responses in large type are emphases added by me.) Enjoy:

Tell us a little about yourself, your education, certifications, etc.

I am 46 years old and been in Podiatry for 25 years. I am married to Liz and we have 4 children. Two boys and two girls. Our oldest is 18 and youngest 10 and they keep us young. I trained to degree level back in the mid-80s and after graduating in Podiatric Medicine specialized in Musculo-skeletal Podiatry dealing with orthopaedic lower-limb and back problems associated with poor biomechanics. About 12 years ago a Podiatry colleague and friend, Andy Horwood, and I were the lead designers of a range of customisable foot orthoses which are widely used in the UK and also other parts of the world. We both regularly lectured and taught workshops, throughout the UK, on the biomechanics of lower-limb function and the prescription and fitting of functional foot orthoses. As founder members of the British Podiatric Biomechanics Group we helped to set-up what is believed to be the first Masters Degree programme in the world in Clinical Podiatric Biomechanics. Andy went on to become one of the main lecturers on this Masters Programme which runs at Staffordshire University, England. I continued to lecture around the UK as guest lecturer for Healthy Step UK and Bailey Instruments who are major suppliers to the British Podiatry Profession. Our customisable foot orthotic devices are now used by over 80% of UK NHS Podiatry Departments as well as many private practices.

What made you want to get into the field of podiatry in the first place?

My initial interest in Podiatry as a profession came through my own personal experiences with running injuries. I realized that my own legs and feet were extremely important to my running career and since I was injured I could empathise with injured athletes. So it became a personal mission to help other athletes to run without injury and help injured athletes overcome their injuries wherever possible. I became fascinated in the single most complex human activity - human gait. Of course I also enjoyed treating non-athletes too. I developed my clinical practice to the point where I could specialise exclusively in Musculo-skeletal Podiatry; one of the first to do so in the UK.

In your schooling and training, what was the general philosophy behind the practice of podiatry? What role did feet play in the body's overall health?
In my schooling as a podiatrist and at post-graduate level there was, and is, a general understanding that our role in foot medicine and surgery is to help the patient ambulate, in footwear, without pain. To assist the body to function in gait as near to the optimum norm as possible. Normal gait is always considered to be with footwear.

Although we knew that our job was to negate the damaging effects of shoes, never once did it occur to me, nor was it ever discussed, that the patient could ever choose between barefoot and shoes.

Our goal was to advise the patient to choose "sensible shoes" so as the foot could work at its optimum. We also believed that at least 70% of the world's population had poor bio-mechanical function of their feet and legs and therefore needed our podiatric foot orthoses. That most people are born with "broken feet". That evolution/creation made a big mistake and we function best in footwear. Never once did we consider that the human foot could cope on its own. We believe that we, as podiatrists, have the answer to most people's foot and lower-limb problems. One eminent paediatric podiatrist even went so far as to openly advise that all children should wear foot orthoses to optimise foot and ankle development. We believed that the foot developed better if supported in a correct alignment by foot orthoses and supportive "sensible" shoes. It is believed that only a few very special people have "perfect biomechanics" of their feet and legs, and these are the only ones who can run without supportive running shoes, the majority of us needing stability shoes and orthoses in order to prevent injuries. We believed the foot cannot and should not support itself or it would suffer long-term damage. Amazingly, we never studied true natural, barefoot, primal gait. We only ever studied shod gait or the barefoot gait of people who have always worn shoes, which I now realise is different from true natural gait.

Our medical philosophy is based around the foot playing a very important role in the health of the rest of the body because of its unique position as the first and only part of the body to hit the ground. It is therefore believed that like a tall building, whatever the foundations do affects the rest of the body. So every part of the body is affected somewhat by the foot due to its mechanical function as the structural foundation. We acknowledge also the fact that other structures distant from the foot can likewise affect the foot. So abnormal muscle function farther up the leg and back can cause compensatory motion in the foot. We assess the mechanical function of the pelvis and lower-limb joints and muscles all the way down to the foot joints looking for abnormalities. We assess stance and gait looking for structural and functional abnormalities and their compensations. Of course, we also assess neurology and circulation to the lower-limb as well as checking the health of skin and nails.

Would you consider yourself a barefoot-friendly podiatrist? Why or why not?

I now consider myself not just a barefoot friendly podiatrist, but a Barefoot Advocate. I now believe very strongly that most feet, given a chance, can support themselves. That feet function best without the hindrance of shoes. I believe that every shoe compromises foot function and that with chronic, long-term wear they damage the muscles, joints, nerve pathways and other structures within the foot. I now believe that supportive shoes, and orthotics when worn, create a dependency which worsens with time. I now advocate, and actively promote, barefoot walking and running as a preventative as well as a rehabilitative tool. I am proud of being a Barefoot Podiatrist, both in action and word. I promote barefoot walking and running to my patients by a "Barefeet Welcome Here" sign in the clinic window, folders of Barefoot news articles and research papers in the waiting room as well as copies of The Barefoot Book by Daniel Howell for patients to read whilst waiting for their consultation. I sell The Barefoot Book and the book Born to Run as part of the treatment advice to patients. I teach rehab exercises to strengthen the feet and ankles and have a barefoot website www.naturalfeet.co.uk to give my patients further advice and encouragement. I also sell 'Minimalist Footwear' for those patients who will not, or cannot go the whole way to becoming completely barefoot. I sell therapy products for bare feet like moisturising creams and rough skin files to smooth any rough dry skin on heels. And finally I walk and run barefoot 24/7 to set the example (apart from at church where I cover my feet out of respect for my church leaders' requests).

Have your approaches to podiatry and the way you treat patients changed over the years? How so and why?

My approach to treatment has changed dramatically over the last few years as I have incorporated more rehabilitation into the treatment programmes and not relied so much on orthoses for continued postural and functional control. However, over the last 6 months that change has become a massive paradigm shift in thinking as I now believe the foot is well designed for supporting itself and the rest of the body if it is given a chance to do so without being hindered by footwear.

I also believe that most people do not have significant bio-mechanical mal-alignments, but rather weakened muscles and poor postural control due to over-reliance on footwear.

Most osseous bio-mechanical problems are irrelevant in barefoot walkers & runners. So I now place most emphasis on rehabilitation rather than orthotic control and also encourage my patients to walk & run barefoot as much as possible. I will often mobilise or manipulate stiff joints to improve foot and leg function then teach patients exercises to maintain and increase that movement, along with barefoot exercise. Sometimes I will tape the feet to encourage better function. As we live on a beautiful peninsula jutting out into the Atlantic Ocean I prescribe barefoot beach walking and running to strengthen weak foot and leg muscles and to mobilise stiff joints. I also refer patients to our clinic physiotherapist and personal fitness trainer where needed to aid rehabilitation. I still prescribe foot orthoses sometimes, though only temporarily when tissue stress relief is required to aid healing the injured structures and to re-educate the muscles by improving postural alignment.

How do your patients react when you recommend barefoot activity? Do they embrace it well or are many hesitant to bare their feet for better health?
Surprisingly, quite a few patients (mainly over 40 years of age) used to walk barefoot as children and are very accepting of the concept. Because we live in a coastal area with lots of seaside resorts and beaches most people here are okay with barefoot walking in these areas and around their houses and gardens. Most do not want to walk barefooted in public areas in town or shopping centres. I have very little problem persuading patients to go for barefoot walks up & down the local sandy beaches as part of their rehabilitation exercises. The majority of my patients are really excited to discover that they won't have to wear orthotics for the rest of their lives if they strengthen their feet. Some prefer to wear minimalist shoes like Vibram FiveFingers and Vivo Barefoot shoes to help with strengthening the foot during walking and running. None have become barefooters to the extent they go out in public except at the beach, though in time that may happen as a few people have been keen enough to buy Daniel Howell's The Barefoot Book and Born to Run. I have only been practicing Barefoot Podiatry for about 4 months. It took me a couple of months to come to terms with barefoot walking being better than shod and rethinking all my old podiatric bio-mechanical theories of gait. During that time I had many sleepless nights whilst I adjusted my thinking. Some days I even began to believe I would have to give up working in my profession because it didn't fit with my new beliefs about barefoot gait. I have now become comfortable with my new Barefoot Podiatry paradigm. And am excited to have a new professional focus. I feel I am on a mission to help other health professionals understand the barefoot gait paradigm. At the end of this month I will be lecturing to podiatrist in our county and in November I am lecturing for 7 hours at the British School of Osteopathy on Barefoot Podiatry.

If someone were interested in more barefoot activity, what recommendations do you have for them to get started?
When a patient is keen to do some barefoot walking or running I tend to start them off with foot strengthening exercises first, because most of my patients are already injured (I reckon 90% of patients attending podiatrists' clinics are injured by the chronic wearing of shoes). I warn them to be cautious about getting carried away with enthusiasm and advise a slow, careful transition into barefoot activities by going for short walks at first and gradually increasing the time spent barefoot walking. I also prescribe barefoot beach walking or running, and encourage them to walk barefoot around their home and garden. If they are amenable to the idea of barefoot hiking I get them to do that too. Some of my patients buy The Barefoot Book &/or Born to Run and I advise them to use my naturalfeet website to learn more about barefoot activity. For those patients who believe in the barefoot concept yet won't or can't go barefoot, I advise and sell them Minimalist Footwear.

What role do you believe footwear should play in our lives, if any?
I believe footwear should play an important, but infrequent role in our lives for protection just like we use gloves for our hands. And just like gloves we should remove the footwear as soon as the purpose for them as been achieved. There are times when we need to protect our feet from extremes of cold and heat just like when our ancestors first started to wear leather shoes thousands of years ago. And of course when carrying out jobs where there is a risk of physical injury to our feet. Some people, though not needing them for physical protection, wrongly will need to wear shoes for their employment due to cultural expectations of their employer or clients. In these cases I would advise they wear minimalist shoes to reduce the negative effects on their feet and of course go barefoot whenever they can. In saying that shoes may be needed for protection, I believe this is actually very rare. Most barefooters become more aware of their physical surroundings by being barefooted and so are naturally more careful. It seems that the sensory perception of the surrounding environment is enhanced by being barefoot so most of the risks of physical harm are never actually realised, just like we don't routinely hurt our hands during the day even though we may place them at risk of harm during the course of our work or recreation. So I actually think most people could go barefoot more than they at first believe. I believe the biggest barrier to barefoot activity is psychological!

Are there any types of people for whom you believe barefoot activity is inadvisable or a lost cause?

The biggest barrier to barefoot activity is psychological! Some people will never enjoy barefoot activity because their minds cannot or will not accept it. On the other-hand there are sadly a few people who would like to enjoy barefoot activity, but cannot or should not try to walk barefoot much or at all, especially outdoors. These few people would find it difficult or impossible because of physical disabilities within the foot and leg. Some of these disabling problems are minor & others more serious. There are some people who have weakened or damaged their feet so much through chronic overuse of shoes that their feet have become dependent on footwear. Some of these problems include atrophy (thinning) of the plantar fat pad , arthritis of the foot joints (particularly mid-foot joints) & damaged muscle tendons through chronic flat-footedness. Other people may have muscle disease which affects their ability to rehabilitate, or a neurological disease which inhibits their tactile sensory perception, like diabetic neuropathy. I would like to make the distinction here between those who have diabetes mellitis with no sensory neuropathy and those with damaged nerves in their feet; the former are perfectly safe to carry out barefoot activities whilst the latter are obviously at risk.

Many podiatrists seem very hesitant to recommend barefoot activity due to concern over liability if patients end up cutting their feet or otherwise getting hurt by it. There are also arguments that recommending barefoot activity goes against "best practices" and that there's no scientific evidence to back up such a recommendation. How would you respond to that?
In the UK patients are not as litigious. They view barefoot activity as a risk they take upon themselves. When I explain how we are evolved/created to walk and run barefoot and I explain some of the anatomical features which make barefoot activity natural, they see the logic in it and they can very easily understand and believe it. Very few see the logical need for shoes, though most are reluctant to walk barefoot in public due to social stigmas and cultural expectations. As far as being in compliance with best clinical practice, in the UK currently the vast majority of podiatrists preach that supportive shoes are required, but there is no 'Best Practice' policy of which I am aware. I would have no qualms about defending myself if anyone did take issue with me preaching the barefoot line.

There is more than enough scientific research to back up our barefoot position and very little if any to back up the shod position as being healthy!

You just have to look at the references in Professor Howell's book to see that. In fact, I believe it is the podiatrists who preach that shoes are required for maintaining healthy feet that are in a difficult scientific position. This is part of the reason I have taken my barefoot stance because I was unable to defend that position any more. Rather like the Tobacco industry should have been more open about the risks of cancer from smoking cigarettes, I feel that as a podiatrist I need to warn my patients about the risks from shoes. I believe in doing what is right and letting the consequences follow!

Finally, as well as believing that natural barefoot gait should be the norm I tried the experiment myself. I was challenged by a physiotherapy friend to do what I believed. So in July I did. I have been barefoot 24/7 ever since (apart from a couple of times at church out of respect for my church ministers wishes -- but he now understands and is more accepting -- and also when I perform nail surgery in order to protect my feet from blood and chemicals). I am now barefoot at work in my clinic, out hiking through the woods and on the cliff paths. I have also started running again after 20 years, this time barefoot. I have run up to 3 miles so far, with none of the problems which stopped me running when I wore running shoes. The personal experiment has worked for me and is working for my patients too. What is so satisfying is having the ability to heal my patients from injuries which have resisted treatment with orthotics and shoes prior to introducing barefoot strengthening exercises, but now they are doing well.

Final thoughts?

The future is exciting for barefooters. It is wonderful to see the growing acceptance of people in our modern shoe-oriented Western Societies beginning to realise the fallacy and misuse of footwear. It is great to see some enlightened shoe manufacturers starting to make shoes which allow more of the natural function of the feet with minimalist footwear. The ball has been cut and is rolling, it is gathering speed and cannot be stopped. It is a blessing to be involved in this great cause! To be able to improve people's health through enlightening them of the dangers of the overuse of shoes. For the first time in my 25 year career I feel I really understand the cause of foot problems and now have a tool to cure people. Primal Gait! Let's sound the warning cry to the world to "Eschew Shoes!"

I thank Dr. Bloor for his enthusiastic willingness to participate in this interview and his very interesting, informative responses. Please understand, however, that his answers should not be used as medical advice and Dr. Bloor and I waive all liability from your use of the information in his responses. I personally recommend that my readers seek out medical advice from their own medical providers to make sure that you are physically fit enough to begin barefoot activity and to rule out any other diagnoses that otherwise could complicate or detract from a barefoot lifestyle -- or even be aggravated by going barefoot.

What do you think of Dr. Bloor's responses? Does this give you a new outlook on barefoot activity? What, if anything, have your medical provider(s) said to you about barefoot activity? Please leave your responses in the comments section below. Thanks for reading.

158 Hours Barefoot, Part I: Unshod in the E.R.

It started with a trip to the Emergency Room. After more than two hours of having strange and disconcerting symptoms, I took my wife, Glenda, to an area hospital to get her evaluated. When we arrived at the E.R. parking area, I decided not to put on my "emergency" flip flops to go inside to get her a wheelchair. I went barefoot and stayed that way for the next six and a half days.

A little backstory: Though I'm a barefooter, I work at a job that requires me by policy to wear socks and shoes. Because of that, I spend about nine hours a day in minimalist footwear five days of the week. Evenings and weekends are my barefoot time. Sometimes I can go barefoot for a three-day weekend for those few official Monday holidays. Because of all this, the longest that I've consecutively gone barefoot was a meager 86 hours from a Friday evening to Tuesday morning on a holiday weekend. Not bad, but as a barefooter I long to go sans shoes as much as possible.

Tuesday Evening

So I went barefoot into the E.R. with my wife. I figured at the time, "Hey, why not? I've never gone barefoot in a hospital before." Two hospital staff members -- both nurses -- warned me about doing this.* The first nurse raised concerns that "you never know" what's on the floors of a hospital E.R. room. I asked if they clean the floors regularly and she replied that yes, they do, but they still see people with various viruses and bacteria in there including MRSA. Her recommendation: Clean my feet really well when I get the chance. The second nurse shared the same thoughts as the first. I told her that I have no open wounds on my feet and she said that such infections can be spread through the smallest of wounds -- even ones we can't see. Ooookayyy. I wasn't terribly concerned about their comments, but my feet were pretty dirty when I got home, so I cleaned them...and put hand sanitizer on them...just because.

Wednesday & Thursday, Days 1 & 2

Over the next two days of my wife's stay in the hospital for tests -- everything turned out okay -- I visited her only in bare feet. I didn't even take shoes into the facility. If, at the end of the day, I felt like my feet were overly dirty, I'd wipe them off with baby wipes or even wash them in the bathroom tub. No big deal and my feet turned out fine.

I'm amazed that, of all the places that you'd think the floors should be especially clean, people think hospital floors are some of the dirtiest. That certainly doesn't bolster my confidence in our health care system. Nevertheless, I see hospital floors as most any others: Yes, there might be something icky stuff on them, but the risks are very low for dangerous exposure or foot infection.

By the time I took Glenda home on Thursday afternoon, I'd gone nearly 48 hours totally barefoot. Not anywhere close to a record, for sure, as that's standard practice for a weekend. I anticipated returning to work the next day and my barefoot streak ending until...

At dinner that evening, I asked Glenda if she was sure she'd be fine the next day with me going back to work. She surprisingly shared that she wasn't sure -- I say "surprisingly" because she hates to inconvenience others for her own benefit, so I realized she was still struggling. Having spent more than two days in a hospital bed and still feeling some after-effects of the stay, she was hoping I could stay home Friday to make sure everything went smoothly. I agreed that was best and called my manager to let him know I wouldn't be back until after the holiday.

Then I realized the serendipitous stroke of barefoot luck that had been dropped in my lap! I'd already gone without shoes for two days and now I had the opportunity to go four more! Most excellent! Not only could I spend more time with my wife -- which cannot be understated -- but I could keep my feet bare longer than I'd ever been able to since taking on this lifestyle. If I kept my shoes off, that barefoot span would definitely break my previous record AND allow me to go almost a week unshod. I was nearly giddy with anticipation of the long weekend ahead.

Next, Part II: Barefoot About the Town


Let's have some feedback. What do you think about my choice to go barefoot in a hospital? Do you think that hospital floors are disproportionately unhygienic compared to other indoor surfaces? Was I taking an unnecessary risk? Was it inappropriate? Please leave your comments below.


* - This post originally mentioned only one nurse. It seems as though my wife's memory is better than mine and that I was merging the conversations with TWO people into one story. That's since been remedied.

Exposing Another Healthy Taboo

Today I want to talk about a very natural activity that some people do in public but that many others find objectionable. For whatever reason, something so natural has become taboo. What once was practiced regularly without issue now leaves those who do it feeling very self-conscious. Many don't even try -- even though they'd like to -- because they don't want to embarrass themselves or make anyone around them uncomfortable. There's no laws against it, but that doesn't matter. The stigma is there and it has permeated throughout society.

While the above statement describes barefooting to a 'T,' it also applies to something else: Breastfeeding.

Bear with me, here.

Not only am I the father of three wonderful children, but I also work in a children's hospital. Through these experiences I've learned a great deal about what's best for children. Experts throughout the world agree that breastfeeding is best. Studies have shown numerous health benefits for babies who are breastfed versus taking formula. What's more, the longer a baby breastfeeds, the more health benefits they'll see down the road. It's really a no-brainer. If a mother is able to breastfeed, she should for so many reasons. Our kids were all breastfed exclusively for at least the first six months of their lives.

While it's a bit of a stretch to compare the two, you could also make an argument that going barefoot has numerous benefits, too. The more you do it, the stronger and more flexible your feet will be. Avoiding shoes also helps prevent the growth of fungal infections on the foot and keeps away smelly feet due to sweating. Your toes also feel better to live free and without restriction from shoes. Going barefoot really is so good.

Unfortunately, however, breastfeeding and going barefoot in public are both thought of by many people as this weird, inappropriate thing. While a woman may want to breastfeed her baby in public, she may resort to pumping ahead of time and feeding her child with a bottle in order to avoid people's mean or uncomfortable glances. While someone may want to go barefoot while they're shopping, they may just resort to wearing flip flops to avoid confrontation or simply strange looks.

Let's be clear about a few things concerning breastfeeding and going barefoot:

Both are natural.
We were born for these things to take place. As this topic heading states, both breastfeeding and going barefoot are perfectly natural things that our bodies have been designed to do. Denying ourselves the privileges and rights to do both would be a travesty.

Both are perfectly legal in public.
One thing that I find interesting are the laws related to these. In all but three states of the U.S., laws protect a woman's right to breastfeed her baby in public -- even if it makes others uncomfortable. No state in the union addresses going barefoot in public, for or against the issue. It would, then, be reasonable to assume that that right is reserved for the people.

Both have numerous health benefits.
Even though this has been proven for breastfeeding by numerous scientific studies, here's a staggering statistic: Only 43% of babies are still being breastfed at six months of age (Doctors recommend that babies be exclusively breastfed for at least the first six months of life). What's more, studies have also shown that breastfeeding can help protect nursing mothers from developing breast cancer later. Although the complications of returning to work are likely a big part of the decision to stop feeding in that way, I have to wonder if women just give up partially because they're too embarrassed to publicly breastfeed. If that's the case, how sad. Going barefoot, though hardly scientifically researched, improves sensory awareness, flexibility and strength in the feet and usually has a positive overall impact on a person's health and psyche. Getting out of shoes with a raised heel has been shown to improve people's posture. I have already shot down on this blog the concerns about safety risks while barefoot. They just aren't legitimate in most situations -- including shopping and dining in public.

Both are often taboo in society.
No matter how natural, legal or even healthy going barefoot or breastfeeding babies are, this is the sticking point for both of these lifestyle choices. They have become areas of contention. For whatever reason, societal norms on both of these issues have drifted away from centuries of natural precedent to twisted ideals of what's "appropriate." No matter what benefits breastfeeding can have for babies and mothers or what going barefoot can do for our health, we have begun to reject these practices because it shows skin or we have misguided concerns about safety risks. I think it's unbelievably sad that societal pressures have led to this.

Don't think breastfeeding in public is taboo? I was fascinated by a story on ABC's TV news magazine "What Would You Do?" A scenario was acted out where a store manager (an actor) was discriminating against a breastfeeding mother (an actress with doll). How would the store patrons react? From the video below, you can see that many came out in support of the mother. Some, however, sided with the manager. Take a look:



We, as a society, need to stand up for and be okay with what's right. We need to stop allowing discrimination against activities which are perfectly natural and healthy. There's nothing inappropriate about a mother breastfeeding her baby in public, even if some skin or -- God forbid -- a nipple is briefly exposed. Likewise, we were born barefoot and feet are exposed all the time when people wear sandals. Who cares if someone just doesn't want material between their soles and the ground? In both breastfeeding and going barefoot, let people make the decision that is most natural and right for them without the pressure of prudish, paranoid or uncomfortable onlookers.

I started The Primalfoot Alliance as a way to begin the process of reversing the steady flow of discrimination against those who want to free their feet in public. Maybe, at least, we can tackle one of these issues while others address the other. Both need attention.

What are your thoughts on this? Am I off base in comparing breastfeeding and going barefoot? What will it take to change society's perceptions of breastfeeding or going barefoot in public? If you are a mother, have you breastfed in public? How were you perceived and how did you feel? If you're a barefooter who has been discriminated against in public, how did that feel? Please share your comments below. Thanks!