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.

Shoe Claims Are All Backwards: Brief Thoughts About Recent Settlements

The sound of heads shaking is echoing throughout the barefoot/minimalist community after news of Vibram's settlement of a class-action lawsuit accusing them of making baseless claims that their Fivefingers line of minimalist footwear could reduce injury and strengthen foot muscles. Now the company has put aside $3.75 million dollars to pay back customers who didn't see such results.

This is what happens when you sell products, folks. If you're going to be taking people's money, you'd better be darned sure that what you claim it can do is scientifically valid. When it comes to footwear, we've seen this before with Sketchers Shape-up line of shoes and FitFlop's sandals.

I'm sure so many podiatrists are laughing about all of this. The most vocal of them take great pleasure in getting on their anti-barefoot-running Websites, their Twitter accounts, and other outlets to essentially say, "See?! The evidence isn't there that minimalist shoes are good for you! We've been saying it all along!"

I totally get it. It's academically dishonest to make claims that using a product aids the feet in reducing injuries and getting stronger when there's no evidence. That makes sense.

As I type this, I'm wearing one of my FOUR pairs of Vibram Fivefingers. Why? Because I have to wear closed-toe shoes for my job. Otherwise I'd be barefoot.

Bare feet are the human condition. Let's all keep remembering that. We were born with bare feet. People have lived for millenia with no shoes and done fine.

In everything we do, going barefoot should be the baseline and any shoes should be added only as necessary. Any claims about what those shoes or orthotics or braces or whatever can do should be based around improving the human condition and they should be backed by evidence.

So instead of:

"Vibram Fivefingers strengthen the feet and reduce injuries" (compared to standard shoes) ...

The claims should be:

"Vibram Fivefingers increase traction on many surfaces and protect the feet while preserving most of the foot's natural function."

See the difference? It's easy to get into legal hot water with the first statement -- obviously, because it happened. It's a lot harder with the second.

I wear Vibram Fivefingers, among other brands of minimal footwear, when I need something on my feet for protection, warmth, or to fulfill a policy when it's not okay to challenge the system. I wear them because they add little to the feet -- NOT because they are so much less bulky or injurious than normal shoes.

As the Barefoot Alliance says in it's main hashtag, #BarefootIsHuman. Let's stop making baseless claims that hurt the underlying intent of the barefoot/minimalist movement and start behaving as if shoes add to the feet instead of barefoot being the subtraction of shoes.

It's more accurate all around, and more honest.

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.

Injuries While Barefoot: The Elephant in the Room

Okay, everybody. Bring it back in for a minute. We need to talk candidly about something.

"Don't worry. Going barefoot is
VERY safe. I'm not going to
get hurt. Really."

For as much as many others and I promote the barefoot lifestyle and talk about how low-risk it is, a very real possibility is that we will actually get hurt because we're not wearing protective shoes. We can even get hurt wearing minimalist footwear when something might have protected us better. The general public believes that catastrophic injuries to bare feet are waiting in every aisle of every store and under every table of every restaurant. We know that's not true, but injury risks still exist. It sucks.

My intent is not to turn anyone off to the barefoot lifestyle. I think it's so beneficial and that most people can live better through it. But just as "stuff" happens to our heads in car crashes, our hands when working with power tools or any other countless scenarios, "stuff" can happen while we're barefoot that, unfortunately, is really, um, "stuffy."

Why am I bringing this up? "You shouldn't be talking about this!," you may say. And that's exactly the reason I am.

We can't be ashamed, as barefooters, that we might get hurt doing the very thing we promote to others. Just as with ANY injury to ANY part of our bodies, we must do the best we can to pick ourselves up, brush ourselves off and move on after a foot injury. We must also support those who've gone through such a thing by encouraging them to not shy away from what's best, overall, for their feet.

I had an extensive conversation on Twitter the other day with a woman by the handle of @QuotidianLight. We'll call her Q for the remainder of this post since I don't know her real name. Q shared with me about how she hurt her foot two years ago after falling off her chair at work and slamming her foot into her metal desk. It was just a freak accident, but she ended up with a neuroma that's been tough to get healed and still gives her pain today - so much, in fact, that she can't go barefoot. She was wearing Vibram Fivefingers at the time, but told me, "If I'd been wearing shoes at work that morning... I'd have ran THIS morning."

The main point she wanted to impress on me was that she felt isolated and alone because she believes barefooters never talk about injuries and just hold in guilt when we get injured.

She's right. It makes sense to keep that information to ourselves so that we don't have shoe promoters feeling validated in their assertion that going barefoot is dangerous. But it also doesn't help when barefooters never address the proverbial elephant in the room.

"It annoys me that people think NO ONE get's hurt barefooting and if you do it's your fault so people don't speak up," Q said. She continued later, "I just wish more people would be open about their injuries. *shrugs*"

I pledged to her that I'd write this post.

Getting a stress fracture while
running in Vibram Fivefingers
turned my barefoot world upside down
in January 2010.

She thanked me and concluded with, "I hate when people get hurt and give up barefoot entirely cause they feel out of options/support."

I've heard it numerous times. Someone loves going barefoot until they get hurt - whether it's a broken toe, bee sting, cut or something else. After that, they get nervous it'll happen again and they hardly go barefoot for the rest of their lives. I know of at least two people in my immediate family who feel this way. It's very real, and these folks need encouragement to go barefoot again.

So there's three points I'd like to make here:

First, we shouldn't ignore the fact that we can - and probably will - get hurt from going barefoot, but we also shouldn't feel ashamed if we do. Understand that your feet ARE more vulnerable when going without shoes or even just minimalist footwear. Resign yourself to the fact that freak things happen sometimes. No matter how an injury to your foot occurs, don't beat yourself up and don't feel guilty or embarrassed about what happened. Just as importantly, let the criticism of shod people roll off your back when they pitch I-told-you-sos in your direction.

Second, don't give up going barefoot because you do get hurt. Obviously, take care of yourself and do what you have to do to get better. Get medical attention to treat and resolve the problem. That may mean a hiatus from going barefoot, but most injuries can and will heal completely. After that's taken care of, remember that you can still confidently go without shoes again. Though risks still exist, the benefits from living barefoot outweigh the risks. Move on a little wiser for the experience. Seek out the support and advice those of us who also go barefoot so that we can encourage you.

Third and finally, support other barefooters who get hurt. Friends, if we find out that one of us has been injured from going barefoot, let's kill them with kindness and not criticism. We need to be wary of pointing fingers and assigning blame when none needs to be assigned or doing so wouldn't help anyway. We want barefooters to stay barefooters, and the only way to do that is to be friendly and understanding with one another.

In closing, both of my brothers used to ride motorcycles on a regular basis. They always had a mantra about the likelihood of having an accident. They'd tell me, "It's not a matter of if you're going to wreck, it's matter of WHEN you're going to wreck." Yet even when they did wreck, they'd fix the bike, heal their bodies and get right back on. Injuries, minor or major, are all but inevitable when going barefoot. It's the mindset we have that determines what we take away from it. In anything we do, we only fail if we give up. Will we let foot injuries isolate us and make us quit, or make us stronger and wiser when we keep going?

Thanks, Q, for your story and inspiring me to write this.

So, community, let's talk about injuries. Do you share Q's opinions? Should the barefoot community be more open and honest about injuries or keep them in the closet? How do we respond to the I-told-you-so remarks from our naysayers? Please leave your comments in the section below.

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.

A Barefooter Went to Camp

I recently spent six days as a counselor at a summer church camp for middle school kids. I haven't been to this or any other camp for four years - a span that predates my time as a full-time barefooter - so I wanted to see how things would go with maintaining a fairly barefoot lifestyle. I say this because the camp does have a rule that shoes are required at all times. I came to discover that this rule had several fortunate exceptions.

The camp directors, with whom I have been friends on Facebook for many years, were all aware of my barefoot lifestyle as we staff all gathered on Monday evening of last week. I had told Carol, the camp's liaison to the sponsoring church, ahead of time that I planned to be barefoot all the way up to the point that campers arrived midday on Tuesday. She said, "Okay."

My intent during the camp was to respect the rules of the campground by setting a good example for the kids while they were on campus. I would wear minimalist footwear when out and about, but go barefoot in our lodge room -- it's a pretty swank campground, so there's no tents or anything.

It turns out that I had other opportunities to go barefoot and that former emphases from years ago on wearing shoes had been relaxed quite a bit. It used to be that flip flops were officially discouraged because they still exposed campers' feet to rocks, sticks and other undesirables. Close-toed, secure shoes were what was recommended. Not anymore. The informational materials only said that shoes or sandals were required at all times.

The interior of the tabernacle building

Even so, there were many occasions that other campers and I would slip off our flip flops or other footwear and go barefoot or just in socks. This was a frequent occurrence at the "tabernacle," an open-sided building in which we held most of our "indoor" all-camp activities. The floor of the structure is a smooth concrete slab, so it was very barefoot friendly. Many of us also slipped off our shoes at the nightly campfires, even going up front to perform skits sans footwear. I taught two hour-long classes - both indoors - each full day of the camp. I'd slip off my shoes upon arriving at each of them and teach barefoot. As the week went on, other campers took my lead and kicked off their shoes during class, too! When at the pool, most people went barefoot as well, naturally.

Shoes were used most when traveling between locations and at mealtimes in the dining hall. Because of the high amount of heat and the fact that many roads around the campground are gravel, going barefoot from place to place wasn't the easiest thing to do, even for me. There was one time, however, that I walked barefoot from the lake up to our mini lodge because my Vibram Fivefingers had gotten all wet and I was none-too-interested in walking all the way back in them. Fortunately, most of the ground between those locations was paved. In the dining hall are signs that say "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. Sorry, this even goes for camp." So we did all keep our shoes on when the campers were there, but for the three meals we staff ate before the kids arrived, I was barefoot the whole time and the kitchen staff - employees of the church-owned campground - never hassled me for it.

In general, I was very pleased with how "barefoot" I could be during the week. While I did need to wear some kind of footwear much of the time, I kept it minimal and had many periods when I could kick it off and go fully primal with my feet. I said earlier that the directors know of my barefoot lifestyle, and I did make the camp nurse aware of my chiropractor's note that I should be allowed to go barefoot. All were receptive and understanding of my choices. I think if I'd pressed the issue more I would have been allowed to go without shoes whenever I pleased, but I did want to wear something when going across the hot pavement and gravel roads.

I can't say with any certainty that my barefoot lifestyle has softened the camp leadership into being more accepting of it, but I'd like to think that. I'd also say that our youth are quite willing to go barefoot more often than adults. Middle school-aged kids haven't been fully programmed yet that shoes are necessary all the time. Even so, it was my job as staff to set a good example. That example, this time, was to only go barefoot at our destinations - an example many campers were willing to follow. It's a start.

What are your experiences with going barefoot at a campground? Have you been blocked by camp policy or the wishes of others from going without shoes there? Have you vastly expanded your preferences for going barefoot because you were camping? Please share your thoughts in the comments section 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.

Show Your Feet Their Independence on Your Day Without Shoes This Saturday

As Founder and Chief Primalfoot Officer of The Primalfoot Alliance, I've planned a couple of  organized activities in my hometown for Your Day Without Shoes this Saturday, June 11. Supporters and advocates of barefoot activity from around the midwest are welcome to come together to eat, play, enjoy the outdoors and show their barefoot independence in...Independence, Missouri.

The shoeless activities will start at 11:30 a.m. with a picnic (bring your own food) and barefoot time at Waterfall Park behind the Bass Pro Outdoor World on the southwest corner of I-70 and I-470 in Independence. The park is a unique space, set up next to a large man-made lake and with paved trails leading throughout a natural setting. There is also lots of space for kicking a ball around or throwing a frisbee. For kiddos, there's a large playground area set up with a climbing rock and customary jungle gym. The playground surface itself is very barefoot friendly, composed of a rubbery wood-chip-like surface.

Independence Center Mall

After that, we'll make our way to the nearby Independence Center on 39th Street, just east of M-291 highway, a uniquely cavernous shopping mall with stores ranging from Macy's to Radio Shack. While there, we can window shop, make any "necessary" purchases, grab an orange julius from the food court and/or have the kids play in the large play area of the mall.

Participants are then encouraged to continue the day on their own while barefoot. Whether it's shopping or dining elsewhere, taking in a movie or countless other activities, I encourage everyone to bare their soles and continue experiencing the world without shoes for the rest of the day.

I should point out one thing: Some of our plans, whether for this organized event or on our own throughout the rest of the day, may get sidetracked due to discrimination from management or security at the places we go. That's part of the reason for Your Day Without Shoes. We want to begin educating others and advocating for our feet. We want to begin changing the tide away from misinformed policies that keep people from living in a way that they find healthy and comfortable -- and that is perfectly legal.

Make sure to visit YourDayWithoutShoes.com to read up on how to make it the best day possible. Print off a bunch of the informational fliers on the Resources page. When people push to make you wear shoes, push back with respectful information that can help others understand that we're not just a bunch of troublesome hippies.

It's Your Day Without Shoes, and the more support we get, the better.

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

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).

Barefoot and Glovehanded

After lots of research and contemplation, I've decided to shift up my lifestyle significantly. Though I still believe in the benefits of going barefoot and will continue to do so, I am increasingly aware of the risk for viruses and bacteria that can be spread from person to person through bare hands. I have had a few instances lately of getting sick and cutting my hands or fingers on various objects.

It is because of these concerns that I've decided to regularly wear medical-grade gloves in daily life. They will provide a barrier that will both guard against infectious diseases and offer some protection against cuts.

We've heard it over and over that the best way to stop the spread of infection is to wash your hands. As I hate having dry skin and I think constant hand washing could lead to that, the next best thing is to regularly wear gloves. I figure, if surgeons wear them to keep surgeries safer, why not I wear them all the time to keep myself safer? I really do think it will help based on some of the evidence I've seen.

As far as their protective properties, let me first say that I'm tired of nicking or cutting my hands. Scratches just annoy me and I know they can lead to infection. If I wear protective gloves, even simple surgical gloves, they can be what catches on items that are capable of scratching or cutting me. While not being able to protect against every risk, I truly believe my risk of injury will go down significantly.

Since some evidence (PDF link) shows that surgical gloves can lose their protection over time, I intend to change them out no less than every two hours throughout the day. In cases when they might get overly contaminated from food or other, ahem, activities, they'll be changed outright afterward.

Now I won't wear gloves all the time -- THAT would be ridiculous, right?! I'll take them off at bedtime...and that's probably about it. Eight hours of barehandedness a day should be enough to keep my skin healthy.

This practice begins TODAY, April 1. I figure it's as good a day as any. To wait any longer would be foolish.*

What do you think? Am I just being paranoid? What would you do to negate the risks of infection from bare hands? What are you doing today to improve your health? Please leave your comments in the section below.

* - If you didn't figure it out by now, APRIL FOOLS! There's no way I'd ever do any of this, though it does provide an interesting commentary on what risks are actually out there and how people irrationally interpret and react to them. We really do have a higher risk of getting sick and injured via our hands than our bare feet.

Reader Homework: Please Ask Around About Broken Glass

I need your help. I want to debunk the myth of broken glass and bare feet once and for all. We barefooters know that reports of broken glass in society are greatly exaggerated, yet we don't have any proof. I'm in the process of changing that by putting together an extensive blog post to tackle this issue.

Dear reader, please start asking around to restaurant, retailer and grocery store management when you go out. Casually ask them something like, "Hey, I'm just curious: How often do you all have to clean up broken glass around here -- like, on an average day?" If you're especially curious, ask how they clean it up and if they usually "get everything picked up." Note the business locations (Applebee's, Walmart, Winn Dixie, etc.), their numbers and any other responses you get.


Runners, I want to hear from you, too. Please keep a mental note to scan the sidewalks and roads on which you run. Count the number of areas of glass (one broken bottle might be a single area) that you come across. Log the numbers if you DO OR DON'T see glass while running, how far you ran AND what kind of area it was (trail, neighborhood, downtown, business district, etc.).


Leave all your awesome data in the comments below or send it to my email at michael A T barefootandgrounded D O T com by Friday, March 18. I'll put your responses together with mine and we'll see just how much glass is -- or isn't -- really out there.

Thanks for your help!

Photo: Painting by Todd Ford. Posted to Art & Critique

Who Holds the Burden of Proof About Bare Feet?

Barefooters are constantly explaining to others why it's okay for us to be unshod -- as if wearing shoes is the natural condition and bare feet are an oddity. Let's be clear: Going barefoot is our natural condition.

Just as having bare hands is the baseline for how we function as human beings, so it should be for feet. We should only wear shoes when truly necessary and when identifiable, legitimate reasons exist. It shouldn't be the obligation of barefooters to prove why we don't need shoes.

Imagine if someone were to say that we should wear gloves on our hands all day long every day. You'd get countless people asking why, claiming it's not necessary and going on without gloves anyway. There are simply not enough legitimate reasons to do such a thing.

It's really the responsibility of those who require shoes to tell us why we and they need them -- and to come up with legitimate reasons. This typically comes in the form of vague excuses of concern over spreading diseases -- which hands do a lot more of, potentially stepping on a sharp object -- which are very few and far between, social appropriateness -- which apparently simply requires any thickness of any material between the soles and the ground, questions of legality -- which, going barefoot isn't illegal, or other not-well-thought-out reasoning.

It's time to start turning the tables on those who discriminate against us. It's time that the burden of proof fall on them to legitimately justify why shoes are so necessary. We need to make them show us the broken glass and not accept their excuses until they do. We need them to take samples of the ground for viral testing to prove that it's unsafe for the public's collective health. We need to make them explain how going barefoot is not acceptable but vulgar t-shirts, patrons with foul odor and people who talk too loudly on their cell phones are. If they claim that going barefoot violates health codes or other laws, they need to show us the proof. If they cannot -- or will not -- do these things, they have no leg to stand on and we must refuse to put on footwear.

Are you a barefooter who finds yourself explaining why your natural state is okay? Do social norms requiring footwear supersede the burden of proof? Are you willing to stand up and turn the tables on discrimination? What do you think would happen if you did? Please leave your comments below.

Photo: Western Rite Critic

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.

The Top 10 Impacts on Bare Feet in 2010

Since you can't turn on the TV, visit a Web site or read a magazine at this time of year without seeing some recap of the year that was, I thought I'd follow suit, look back and share the top 10 ways that bare feet or going barefooted made an impact in 2010. In this second year of creating this list, some are news items while others are trends or products. You may not have heard of some of the things on my list. Quite honestly, you may not agree with what I've selected or the order in which I've put them. What's important here is that the list is comprised of 10 ways that bare feet became more pervasive and made a name for themselves this year, not necessarily how the public saw them as a whole -- and not necessarily good. The list, in ascending order:


Honorable Mention: The Primalfoot Alliance Begins
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that The Primalfoot Alliance began this year. My brainchild -- but the work of a number of people -- began the process of "Taking Our Feet Back" and advocating for those who choose to go barefoot...even in public. There's a lot more on the horizon for this group. Keep an eye out in 2011.


10. Tiger Woods Likes Them Naked -- His Feet When Practicing, That Is
On the heels of Tiger's respectable #2 finish in my rankings last year for his widely-publicized post-vehicular-crash shoeless nap, he made it known this year that he often practices his golf swings sans footwear. Of his coach Sean Foley, Tiger wrote in a PGA blog, "Sometimes he has me hit shots barefoot, just to work my balance." Cool! So cool, in fact, that there was much speculation ahead of this year's Ryder Cup in early autumn that Tiger would even compete barefoot. Alas, that wasn't meant to be, but kudos to him and his coach for seeing the light shining down on the benefits of barefoot activity.


9. Serena Williams Misses U.S. Open After Cutting Feet in Restaurant

Some barefooters took notice when news broke in July that tennis star Serena Williams cut her foot on a piece of broken glass in a restaurant. As you're likely aware, the threat of broken glass is a common reason for restauranteurs to deny barefoot patrons. This could have ended up as fodder for barefoot-unfriendly folks to continue such discrimination. So was Serena going barefoot at a restaurant? What happened?

Ms. Williams told USA Today that details of the entire event are a bit of a mystery, but that she does know that both of her feet got cut by broken glass while she was wearing sandals and exiting the establishment. She's all better now and back to playing, but the scare left her with a lacerated tendon and a number of stitches.

Wow. It goes to show you that sandals won't even protect against some things, even while they are considered adequate "protection" compared to bare feet by so many naysayers. I think it also is a testament to how footwear "dumbs down" the feet and cuts off some of our senses. I wonder if this would have happened if she were barefoot. Would she have been more aware of her surroundings and, therefore, avoided the glass?


8. Groups Set New Records Sans Shoes
If there's something worth doing, somebody will think it's worth doing more than anyone has ever done it. That applied to bare feet this year as records were made and broken for both walking and running without shoes. Unfortunately, no one in the Western world managed to pull it off...for long.

The Guinness World Record for
Largest Barefoot Walk was
set in China in 2010.

In June, The Barefoot Runners Society made a "run" at the Guinness World Record for Largest Barefoot Race. They set it in early May when 140 of their closest friends ran around an indoor facility in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Their accomplishment was eclipsed in December, however, when 306 runners in Mumbai, India, took part in a barefoot half marathon organized by the Barefoot Runners of India Foundation.

Those who preferred a slower form of shoeless locomotion set their own records this year, too. First, it was 1,141 barefoot people in Chengdu, China, who walked one kilometer to set the Guinness record for Largest Barefoot Walk in September. The event was organized by Infinitus (China) Company Ltd. as part of their World Walking Day. Not long after their stroll, however, another group of more than 1,900 attempted to break that record in Andhra Pradesh, India, in November. It, however, has not been certified by the folks at Guinness as of this writing.


7. Sesame Street Tells Kids: "Set Your Piggies Free"
Kids love to take off their shoes...and so does Ziggy Marley! The good folks at the Sesame Workshop released a music video on their flagship PBS program "Sesame Street" this year. In short, it reminds kids that shoes don't need to be worn all the time. Aside from a nitpick I have about their implying that bare feet and pavement aren't friendly with each other, it's a cute song. Here's hoping that it helps bolster an army of children who don't fear bare feet on themselves or others as they grow older (and become managers at stores and restaurants). Hey, a barefooter can hope, can't he? Take a look:



6. "The Barefoot Book" Released by a "Barefoot Professor"

If ever barefooters around the world wanted an instruction manual on the benefits of going barefoot to share with friends, anatomy professor and barefooter Daniel Howell, PhD, released it this year.The Barefoot Book came out in the summer and started making waves in national media by the fall. Within months, Howell began giving interviews with the likes of The Washington Post, MSNBC, NBC, WGN Radio and numerous other outlets. While many of the interviews largely ignored the substantial contents of the book, Howell put a legitimate face on barefoot living and backed it up in writing. I'm excited to see how things progress as Howell continues the interviews in 2011 and The Barefoot Book becomes more widely known.

5. Taylor Swift Performs Barefoot at the VMAs (and Other Celebs Kick Off Their Shoes)

One of the hottest names in music this year was Taylor Swift, and she made waves online when she performed barefoot at the MTV Video Music Awards in September. Her song, seemingly sung to Kanye West, lended itself well to a shoeless performance since going barefoot is often considered a symbol of humility. Afterward, Twitter lit up with all kinds of comments about her lack of shoes. While some were supportive and thought it was cool, many panned her for being so gross, blah, blah, blah. You can read more and see the performance at my blog post about the whole thing.

When Miss Swift wasn't baring her soles, other celebrities made headlines here and there in 2010 for going barefoot, too. They included Michael Franti, Pamela Anderson, Thomas Jane, Diana Vickers and Isabel Lucas, to name a few.


4. Rex Ryan's Foot Fetish Fallout
I was done putting this list together when this bombshell fell out of the sky and I had to bump all the earlier stuff down a notch. Apparently the New York Jets' head coach and his wife like to play "footsie" with each other...and record it...and post it to the Internet. Once the media got wind of it, the Internets lit up with the term "foot fetish," and Ryan had some a'splainin' to do -- or not. "I know you need to ask and all that stuff, but it's a personal matter and I'm really not going to discuss it, OK?" he said in his response to reporters' questions. So sports media folks didn't get any answers and pretty much dropped it. Over and done with, right? Not quite. The media loves a good story and NFL head coaches' foot fetishes make for titillating material, so what's the best way to keep this thing alive as long as possible? Ask sex therapists what they think! Talk about it on The View! And that's just what they did:

Now I'm very clear that I don't consider myself a foot fetishist, but this falls into the "to each his own" category for me. I know that there are many in the barefooting community that DO have foot fetishes, but there are also those who are staunchly opposed to them. I like what the therapist in the aforementioned link said, "It's only defined as a problem when the person or couple define it as a problem." Fair enough. Let's move on.


3. "One Day" Throws the Barefoot Baby Out with the Bath Water
Who doesn't love a great cause to get behind? Nobody! Okay, so there are people throughout the world who don't have any shoes and need access to them sometimes -- emphasis on "sometimes." I can admit that. It's good to have a pair available.

Along comes TOMS Shoes to organize "One Day Without Shoes," encouraging people to nobly go barefoot for a day in April to understand what it's like to live sans footwear. And while you're at it, you can buy a pair of their for-profit footwear and they'll donate a pair to needy children. Huh. Well, fair enough. TOMS claims they knew of more than 250,000 folks who bared their soles for the day for the cause. The theme for this year's "One Day" of bare feet? "It's Hard Without Shoes." Wait, what?

It turns out that to effectively promote your cause of selling shoes to the charitable masses, you have to demonize bare feet -- even though it's the best way to live and most people really can get away with it most of the time. And demonize they did. Folks tweeted and blogged all over the 'Net about how much their feet hurt (which makes sense because their feet aren't used to it) and how they were getting kicked out of some places because of it. Welcome to the barefooters' world, friends. Well, I guess with respect to the last point, it IS hard without shoes...to shop or dine in this country, but I digress. I'll avoid getting into the nitty gritty details of how many things are misguided about TOMS campaign, but will say that it doesn't help the cause of promoting barefoot activity when a company that makes its money from selling shoes can rally so much support for a campaign that primarily is meant to sell their shoes.

On the plus side, at least one young lady decided it wasn't so hard without shoes that day. She's kept a barefoot lifestyle going since that day. At least there's some hope.


2. Lieberman Study Data Takes "Barefoot" Running to the Next Level
What could get supporters of barefoot running even more hyped about the sport following the success of Christopher McDougall's book Born to Run? (#1 on my list last year) Proof! And that's just what they got in the results of the Harvard study, "Biomechanics of Foot Strikes & Applications to Running Barefoot or in Minimal Footwear" published in Nature in January. In a nutshell -- help, I'm in a nutshell! -- Daniel Lieberman, PhD, et al showed evidence that running with a forefoot strike ala barefoot running creates less force on the body.

Yours truly running barefoot in
the Hospital Hill 5K in Kansas City,
June 2010.

What happened next eclipsed anything we'd seen from Born to Run. Media outlets everywhere picked up on the results and fitness folks all over were talking about it. Podiatrists came out of the woodwork stressing caution. The term "barefoot shoes" started to permeate everyday culture. Enough Vibram Fivefingers got out there that most people had at least seen or heard of them -- possibly through a friend who had a pair.

One event that made waves among the barefoot community was the first ever New York City Barefoot Run, a pilgrimage of sorts. About 265 barefoot runners from all around the U.S. and world, including many of the most well-known, converged on The Big Apple for the event. Though I didn't go, I heard that a great time was had by all. We can expect to see it a second year, and many more similar events spring up all over the place in the years to come.

The barefoot running movement and research on the sport will continue for a long time after 2010. In early December, not one year after the study started making waves, another leading researcher announced that she was leaving her school to conduct research alongside Lieberman. Irene Davis, PhD, a barefoot runner herself, left the University of Delaware to help launch a running center at Harvard Medical School. I think it's safe to say that we've only scratched the surface on what we know about running without shoes. What's more, we should see more studies coming out in the next few years to empirically back up what many of us already know about the benefits of running barefoot.


1. The "Barefoot Bandit" Gets Nabbed

He fought the law, and
the law finally won.

(Cue the "Real Men of Genius" music) Here's to you, Mr. "Barefoot Bandit" Colton Harris-Moore. You jumped all the way from #5 on last year's Top 10 list to the prime spot in 2010. And boy, did you do it in style -- and completely barefoot. (He ain't got no shoes on!) You nabbed our hearts while the police nabbed you in The Bahamas. Nobody else could have evaded authorities for more than a year while robbing places and snatching airplanes on the joy ride of a lifetime. (The BALLOON BOY has nothing on YOU!) While we barefooters just try to avoid getting a talking to from security at the local mall, you tried to see what kind of Cessna was available to steal undetected from the closest airport. (I'll TAKE the one in RED!) Now, we don't condone the illegal things you did... (You can STILL fly as a JAILBIRD!) .. but we have to admit that we admire that you often did it without shoes. That's...pretty...cool. (Mr. "Barefoot Bandit" Colton Harris-Moore!)

All right. Enough antics. Man, can you believe that kid? He started his spree in 2008 and wasn't caught until July of 2010. What's more, he got all the way across the country in that time!

He made such an impact in the news this year that Time Magazine even named him #4 of their "Top 10 Fleeting Celebrities" of the year. That's why he definitely deserves the top spot here. It remains to be seen what impact his barefoot adventures had on society's perceptions of bare feet, but one writer tried to quickly cut off negative views at the knees by writing a post called, "Not all 'barefooters' are bandits." It actually is worth a read, highlighting a few barefooters of notoriety.

We'll see what happens to Harris-Moore. Maybe he can share with his fellow inmates all the benefits of going barefoot...in the shower...with soap on a rope. :-\


So what do you think of this list? Was there something that you think was a huge omission? What struck you as the top impacts on bare feet -- good or bad -- this year? Please leave your comments in the section below.