The Barefoot Professor

The Barefoot Professor Misrepresented By Shoe Consultant

2011-11-30T15:24:00.000-05:00

I had the great pleasure of participating in a roundtable discussion on barefoot running at the recent UKSEM conference in London last week. The conference was a wonderful opportunity to meet hundreds of fascinating coaches, doctors, scientists and athletic trainers from around the globe. The roundtable discussion (titled “Natural Running – Advantages & Disadvantages”) was a memorable opportunity for me as I got to share the stage with experts on barefoot running and shoes. The five experts on the panel were Daniel Lieberman (Harvard), Benno Nigg (University of Calgary), Matthias Marquardt (Natural Running), Simon Bartold (ASICS) and myself. The discussion was moderated by Ross Tucker, a young scientist from the University of Cape Town who is a consultant for Adidas South Africa.

Unfortunately, Ross Tucker and I must not have been at the same roundtable discussion at UKSEM. In his summary of the discussion published on his blog today, Ross managed to completely misrepresent my statements on barefoot running. Let me set the record straight.

Ross started the roundtable discussion with the question: “'Shoes are evil. They do not help, they may even cause injury. Barefoot running is natural, and will help prevent injury, and therefore everyone should be encouraged to run barefoot'. Do you buy or sell this concept?"

Ross says that “only Daniel Howell outright bought the concept.” Unfortunately, that is completely untrue. My response to his “buy or sell” question was “Both. Buy and sell. 90% buy.” How does this translate to “outright bought the concept”?

Ross’ mischaracterization of my position doesn’t stop with this opening remark; he continues it all the way through his summary article.

Ross said in a blog for The Guardian and reiterated in his summary of the discussion that there are likely some “people who simply cannot adapt to barefoot running.” Although Ross Tucker may be “certain of this case,” it is pure conjecture. Neither of us have any scientific evidence on this point, but I say it’s equivalent to positing that some people (living in a hypothetical glove-wearing society) cannot adapt to using their bare hands upon taking their gloves off.

Ross accuses me of not recognizing that “being barefoot as a runner exists in a larger context, and that context includes about 100 things that make us different from our ancestors. For example, we sit at desks for 8 hours a day, we sleep on comfortable mattresses, we drive, and we "hunt" our food in supermarkets and not in bushlands, we play in shoes (when we're not playing on computer games), and we grow up in them and then at 30, we are faced with a possible change (as a result of this debate). Not one of those things happened before, but every one of them COULD be a contributing factor to injury risk. In other words, weakness of supporting muscles and tendons as a result of years of disuse and TV-watching might mean that being "natural" is a more risky option that being in shoes. There is a real possibility, as stated earlier, that some people need shoes in order to run.” (emphasis in original).

Of course I DO recognize that barefoot running exists in a larger context and I actually stressed this point during the discussion. I said that it’s unrealistic to spend decades growing up in shoes, wear shoes throughout the week, then take them off for a few minutes to run barefoot and expect your feet to perform well. This is one reason why I think we all should be walking barefoot more. Ross seems to be saying that because we eat McDonald’s junk food and watch TV too much, we should abandon doing anything that’s natural for our bodies. Actually, it might seem that Ross Tucker has a bone to pick with me since he quoted a tweet in which I called his above arguments “bull.” But he obviously misunderstands my point; Yes, there is a technique to running barefoot and (as I said in my book) we must be slowly weaned from shoes (i.e., rehabilitated), but unlike Ross I believe that everyone can do it barring some unusual medical problem. It is the suggestion that some people will always need big, bulky running shoes that I think is bull.

Ross also accuses me of making “a very basic mistake” by equating natural with better. He claims that antibiotics are not natural (actually most of them are) yet our lives have been enhanced by them, therefore natural is not always better. Ross clearly thinks he’s making a suitable analogy, but he’s comparing apples to oranges when he compares antibiotics to shoes. For the record, I agree that natural is not always better. There is no doubt that man-made products (or “unnatural” uses of natural products like antibiotics) have benefited mankind, but this doesn’t mean that all man-made inventions benefit mankind. Unlike antibiotics, shoes have a demonstrably negative effect on human anatomy and gait; I’ve written a book detailing these effects.

Finally, Ross neglected to mention that I said there will always be a need for shoes – under the harshest terrain or weather conditions, for example. My philosophy is that shoes are tools, use them when necessary but not otherwise. And when shoes must be worn, choose those that have a minimal impact on foot anatomy and gait biomechanics. What I “buy” is that traditional running shoes with bulky cushioning, elevated heels, arch supports and toe springs are man-made concoctions that have an unnatural impact on human stance and ambulation; they likely cause injuries and can be done without.

So, Ross Tucker, I have a question for you: Misrepresenting your “opponent” is the best way to advance your argument – buy or sell?

Much Ado About Nothing

2011-11-22T12:03:00.002-05:00

If you’ve been following my blog you know that I’m a Christian as well as a barefooter. I’m presently engaged in an email conversation with a young Christian man who wants to go barefoot to church but is facing intense social pressure from the congregation and church leaders. This mystifies me on so many levels.

There is nothing anti-Christian about going barefoot. Indeed, strong biblical arguments can be made that it’s more Christian to go barefoot than wear shoes (Exodus 3:5, Joshua 5:10, Matthew 10:10, for example). There are no dress codes proscribed in the New Testament and, in fact, such rules and regulations are discouraged in the Scriptures and were shunned by the early church. Judging others who come to worship is forbidden in no uncertain terms (James 2).

Okay, we all know that religious people can be nutty and inexplicable. They often embrace weird beliefs for no good reason. But what about everyone else? Even in the secular world bare feet remain a volatile subject.

Bob Neinast recently wrote a captivating blog (as usual) about a librarian who was fired for refusing to post a NO BARE FEET sign at her library. This happened in 1972, but sadly, things have not improved since then. Indeed, things have gotten worse; Bob has himself lost several court cases for simply wanting to use his public library sans shoes. Anyway, the fired librarian, Joan Ford, captured the lunacy of this dispute so exquisitely that I have not been able to shake her words from my head since I first read them:

“There’s something explosive about the issue I don’t understand. It arouses intense passions – especially among the no-bare-feet partisans – as inexplicable to me as was to Gulliver the deadly political strife in Lilliput over whether to break the big or small end of a breakfast egg.”

What is it about bare feet that ignites people so? Mrs. Ford went on to speculate, “Maybe some sexual nuance that escapes me?” I don’t know if that’s the answer (because it escapes me, too), but clearly there’s something. If most of the world has a secret foot fetish it might at least explain the fear religious folks have for baring them. Perhaps passions are aroused because the feet are so sensitive to touch, but then so are the fingers and lips but we have no qualms about exposing those. One might think that bare feet are taboo because they’ve been locked out-of-view in shoes for so long, but sandals and flip flops reveal the feet and are socially acceptable, so that can’t be it either.

The war between Big-Endians and Little-Endians.

A mountain out of a mole hill.

Much ado about nothing.

Can some foot-hater out there explain to us why bare feet are such a big deal to you?

My Scathing Analysis of Foot Experts Misinforming the Public

2011-09-20T13:37:00.000-04:00

USA Today published an article recently on the dangers of new "barefoot-like" shoe styles. In the report,podiatrists Kendrick Whitney and Michele Colon actually state that high heeled platformsare better for your body than balletflats or the Vibram Fivefingers. Why? Because a zero-drop shoe – in theirprofessional opinion – is bad for your legs and feet. In the article, Colondecries a particular type of shoe because “there’s no structure, essentially nosole, they’re too flat.”

Run (quickly… and barefoot) from any podiatrist whoclaims your foot needs “support.” I cringe whenever I hear a foot doctor say the footneeds support, or that such-and-such shoe is bad because it doesn’t offer enoughsupport. And here we have two podiatrists claiming that ultra-hard, immobilizing, high heeled shoes are better for you than low, flexible shoes that allow for natural foot mobility.

It appears to me thatpodiatrists like Whitney and Colon do not fully understand or appreciate foot physiology. And I amastounded – though perhaps not surprised – that it takes a non-podiatrist likeme to set the record straight. They, like so many other members of the medicalcommunity and society at large, are simply brainwashed. They are soculturally-biased that they cannot see the obvious about humanambulation or discern "normal" from "natural."

Can you imagine a dentist who sincerely believes thatcandy for breakfast, lunch and dinner is the best thing you can do for yourteeth? If the dentist was deceiving his patients merely to increase his own profits,I would merely despise him. If he were so ignorant of dental hygiene as tosincerely believe his prescription is best, then…. well, I would be truly afraid tobe his patient. So is our situation, however, with many of today’s podiatrists.Crazy.

You do not needshoes. In fact, your feet, knees, hips and spine would be stronger andhealthier if you wore shoes less. That is fact based on human anatomy andphysiology. I invite Whitney, Colon and their shoe-touting colleagues to showme ANY scientific data that supports a daily necessity for shoes – specificallythe shoes they hype with elevated heels, arch supports, cushioning, etc. In TheBarefoot Book, I provide many, many references to the primary scientificliterature exposing the hazards of shoe use. Whitney and Colon do not tellreaders of USA Today that elevated heels unnaturally shorten the Achillestendon, putting strain on the arch and ultimately causing the arch to fall.They do not mention that narrow toe boxes on shoes cause hallux valgus, bunionsand hammer toe. They neglect to inform that arch supports, elevated heels andtoe springs immobilize the foot and halt the windlass mechanism, which is so crucial tonatural walking. They also forget that athlete’s foot and toenail fungus onlyinfect us when we encase our feet in warm, moist, closed-toe shoes. And maybethey don’t know that the leading cause of knee arthritis (probably) is elevated shoe heels(elderly women get knee arthritis 4x more than elderly men). All of these problems are caused by shoes and rarely seen in barefoot cultures, but suggesting that we go barefoot more seems unimaginable to them.

Here’s a quote from the article: “Best everyday option formost women: “Something with a 1- or 2-inch heel” that’s well constructed andfits well, Colon says. “You’re giving the foot a little bit of an arch. It putsthe body in a normal position for walking.””

URGHH. Do you know WHY you’re giving the foot “a littlebit of an arch”? Because you are locking the windlass mechanism in the “engaged”position. (Please see my videodescription of the windlass mechanism). And walking in a 2-inch heel may be“normal” (meaning it’s accepted by the masses), but it is not natural.

Going barefoot is natural and healthy; wearing shoes isunnatural and by-and-large unhealthy. In the ideal world you should employshoes the same way you employ gloves… only when necessary. In my own life Ihave found that I actually needfootwear less often than I need hand protection, even in winter. So, shoes areunnecessary in most situations and going barefoot is unquestionably healthier, but if you’ve been wearingshoes all of your life you do need to transition out of them slowly. Shoes create a dependency on shoes. Ourfeet have been debilitated by them and they must therefore be rehabilitated (by walking barefoot). Like anyrehab, the process may be uncomfortable at times, but if you complete the requisitephysical therapy you will be stronger and healthier in the end.

Rant over. Thank you.

Mean People Suck: RIGHT BACK AT CHA

2011-09-07T21:48:00.001-04:00

I’ve beenblogging for about 1.5 years now and one of my most viewed posts is Mean PeopleSuck (which is also one of my personal favorites). In the original postI kept my responses to a minimum, but in this updated post I reply to everycomment. I hope readers of this blog recognize the lack of critical thinkingexhibited by the commenters and the logical fallacies they employ. The comments are also rather mean-spirited.Clearly, these are frustrated people who can only talk this way under cover of anonymity.If you read the original post, enjoy the comments again, and my replies thistime. :-)

Mycomments are [in brackets].

1. Another idiot academic heard from. Go walk on brokenglass, MORON. Does this jerk have a Piled higher and Deeper degree? [I do have a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Va. Tech. I thenconducted biomedical research at Duke University Medical Center for 4 years andMcGill University for 2 years prior to joining the faculty at LibertyUniversity in 2003. I have a box of broken glass in my office; sometimes Idemonstrate barefoot walking on glass for students and visitors.]

2. Maybe he should just return to the planet of the apes,where shoes are not a necessity. [That is a TV show;there is no such planet. I prefer to live in reality, not TV world.]

3. The professor should get himself checked for hookworms. They may be affecting his mind. [Hook worms werea serious concern throughout the southeastern United States in the 1800’s andearly 1900’s. The parasite has been basically eliminated by the use of indoorplumbing – and yes, shoes. Shoes are no longer necessary, however, because everyoneuses indoor plumbing and the contamination cycle has been broken. In order toacquire hookworm, a person must step on fresh feces (less than 5 days old)dropped in damp soil from an already-infected person. The likelihood ofacquiring hookworm in the United States today is extremely low – like winning alottery.]

4. He'd like to put tens of thousands, who make shoes,out of work. Mainly very poor people in India. Never mind the sock makers. Whata loser! [And just think of all the poor tobaccofarmers and sellers we put “out of work” in the past decade. Perhaps they couldbuild windmills are something useful instead of body-harming products. It’sokay… everyone wins in the end.]

5. if he gets his way, it will put all the women who aremaking a better living for their families in Africa out of luck. Let's justtell 'em: "Go back to being barefoot and pregnant!" [See comment #4]

6. This is why the Educational system in America is somuch a failure. Calling wearing shoes an "addiction" is just sillyand unworthy of academic inquiry. It is not even worthy of a 3rd gradementality. I suggest that the "professor" stop smoking pot, get areal job and try to contribute something useful to society--if he actually hasthe ability. The so-called 'university" is a sham to even allow thisembarrassing nonsense to go public. CERTAINLY A LEFT WING NUTCASE TOO. [I typically vote Republican, though I’m fed up with bothmajor parties. I don’t smoke pot, I do have a real job that often requires 60hours per week or more of my time and I’m trying my best to contributesomething useful to society. Shoes are unhealthy; at least 90% of our footproblems in this country can be traced back to our shoes, including athlete’sfoot, toenail fungus, hammer toe, bunions, hallux valgus, flat feet, corns andblisters. Shoes are an addiction in the sense that people feel they cannot livewithout them. If *you* think *you* can live without them, try it for sevenconsecutive days. The addiction is not just personal, it’s primarily cultural.If you choose to go seven days barefoot, please tell me about the experience.]

7. This IS a health issue - a mental health issue forthis wingnut. Parents beware of where you send your children."University" is the new pseudonym for "indoctrination camp"that exposes young, dare I say it, inadequately prepared, minds to this sort ofidiotic "new-age" blather. Don't know much about Liberty (People'sRevolutionary Right-Mind Camp), but if they have instructors like this withtenure, well ... [Liberty University does not offer tenure. I agree that most schools todayare “indoctrination camps,” especially public schools. Children areindoctrinated, for example, to believe that wearing shoes is a modern necessity;that going barefoot is harmful and often illegal. My goal is to end theshoe-indoctrination. BTW, private schools – like Liberty University – are generallyless ‘politically correct’ and have less government intrusion, making them moreopen to the free exchange of ideas.]

8. I invite this nut job to retrieve my mail in July andAugust from my mailbox next to the asphalt road fronting my house. Next, Iinvite him to discuss his penchant for barefootedness with his automobileinsurance company. Next, he's welcome to talk to a podiatrist or two about theobviously complete fallacy of arch support for some individuals. How about aMetro ride at rush hour? I could go on, but...why are these people invariablyfound in universities? (Other than easy life, little or no pressure, taxpayerfunded/supported jobs, etc.). [I can easily walk on hotpavement in summer while barefoot ; I have done so even in Houston in July. Noinsurance carriers require drivers to wear shoes while operating a vehicle – dothe research yourself if you wish. I have ridden a metro barefoot. Thebiomechanics of the foot arch is explained in my book and many podiatristsaround the world are realizing that immobilizing the arches in shoes isharmful. Of all the commenters I list here; you mouth off the most about thingsyou know nothing about.]

9. Have you ever stepped into a fire ant hill in barefeet, professor? Have you ever walked on pine needles? I could go on and on.Shoes protect our feet from all kinds of hazards as well as keeping any cuts orscratches from being exposed to dirt and germs. Just another loony liberal. [I have not stepped onto a fire ant hill barefoot, or inshoes. I very much enjoy walking on pine needles and even pine *cones* if that’swhat you meant. Shoes are incubators for growing germs which is why is muchless “germy” to go barefoot. Cuts and scratches do happen rarely, both on myfeet and my hands. I am not a liberal; I’m a conservative.]

10. Maybe the post should have a regular feature wherethey profile a "professor" from Liberty "university". Itwould be more entertaining then the funny papers. (except when you consider allthe morons who pay money to go there) [One definitionof moron is ‘stupid people.’ Stupid people speak of things they know not. Youdo not know Liberty University.* Therefore, you are a moron. *(You’ve neverbeen on the campus, talked with students or professors, read the assignedtextbooks, etc. You probably don’t know that LU is a fully-accredited institutionwith a law school, engineering school, aviation school, award-winning debateteam, etc., and is the 8^th largest university in America.) You alsodon’t know the difference between “then” and “than.”]

11. Sounds like one of the loonies from woodstock.thegood old days no bathe,no shave,mary jane,drugs and rock n roll.now aprofessor,this is an american success story [I was bornin 1969 so I’m a little too young for Woodstock. I’ve never endorsed the “hippie”behaviors you describe]

12. I know there's gotta be a connection to the earthonly being 6,000 years old and the "professor's" bare feet.... [I don’t think there is.]

13. Shoes are required in places of business not forhealth reasons, but for liability. Should he step on something and injure hisunprotected foot, the business is liable. This guy is an idiot. [I have not found a single insurance policy that requiresfootwear of patrons in a business open to the public. Find one and prove mewrong.]

14. Professor Howell's undergraduate education in biologyshould have included a course in parasitology. Hookworns, roundworms,whipworms, etc. - all can be acquired by walking barefoot in contgaminatedsoil. [Perhaps *your* undergraduate education shouldhave included such a course. Sheesh.]

15. And this nutty professor has tenure. [Why do these people think I have tenure? I have never stated that I do because Liberty University does not offertenure. Well, you know what they say about “ass-u-me.”]

16. HELLO! Read the last sentence. He's selling a book!This is not "news," it is self promotion. [Self-promotionis promoting yourself. I did not write the article you commented on; theWashington Post did. Sheesh.]

17. As a Liberty University graduate, I can assure youthat there is no requirement to sign or state that one believes in Creationism.Also, I can tell you that most people at Liberty likely think this guy is asmuch of a nut about the barefoot thing as those who do not go there. [Yep, I am hated on both sides of the aisle.]

18. I had a real professor at a real college whom didn'twear shoes. But comparing RIT to Liberty is like comparing an educated Harvardlaw scholar to a dingbat from Alaska. [Liberty has alaw school (founded in 2004) that is already one of the best in the nation. In2010 Liberty was the only school to achieve 100 percent bar passage rate in thestate of Virginia: Washington & Lee was at 90 percent; George Mason, 84.8percent; University of Virginia, 75 percent; and the College of William &Mary, 73.3 percent. On the whole, LU is not comparable to Harvard, but neitheris RIT. Finally, I’m not sure what you have against Alaska; I’m fromVirginia.]

19. I hope the professor gets plantar fasciitis and thensee how he does with out shoes. [Going barefoot is thebest way to strengthen your feet and *cure* plantar fasciitis. However, PF mayoccur during the rehabilitation stage when you first start barefooting.]

20. Nuts! What's this clown going to do during wintertime? What is he accomplishing other than to show what an eccentric he is? He'sa narcassist! What a waste! [Winters in Virginia arepretty mild, so I can usually stay barefoot. When we have deep snow I wearshoes, just as I wear gloves, coats, hats, etc., to keep warm. As I say in TheBarefoot Book, a shoe is a tool; use it when you need it. But shoes should notbe worn all day every day.]

21. Acadmia has truly become a safe house for the crazy,couched in the guise of intellectualism. As bad as it was fifteen years ago,acadamia seems completely awash in, make that saturated, with those not fit forthe mainstream workforce. Besides math and science, it is now important toprepare our children for college by instilling in them skeptisism for everyword uttered by the "learned." This is particularly so for humanitiesand fine arts professors. [I am a science professor,though I do have a love for the humanities and the fine arts. Students (indeedeveryone) should have a healthy dose of “skeptisism" especially toward “acadmia",but smart people have minds open to new ideas.]

22. As a physician, I think undergraduate universityprofessors in general are unsightly pieces of waste material whether we aretalking Liberty U or Harvard. [Honestly, I have similarfeelings for MD’s, but not DO’s.]

23. C'mon hippie, put on your shoes already for Christsake. You look like a frikin idiot!. [As a Christian, Isincerely hope that everything I do is for Christ’s sake, but he told Moses totake off his shoes (Ex.3:5) and sent out his disciples barefoot (Matt. 10:10),so I don’t think Christ is opposed to my barefoot-is-best mentality.]

24. This "Barefoot Porfessor" is the perfectexample of the professorial personality: No Commonsense! [If by commonsense you mean “conventional wisdom” then Iconfess to be a skeptic. The wisdom of the masses is often nonsense. ]

25. If this is not proof that these professors are justuseless. Hey have this idiot walk on some glass or on a Phoenix sidewalk whenthe temps are 115. To think it costs thousands and thousands of dollars to senda child to college to be taught by fools like this. Not sure it is worth themoney. [As I’ve stated in previous responses above, Ican walk pretty comfortably on both broken glass and hot pavement. College isvery expensive and (for some majors) may not be worth the investment, but thencolleges do not exist to be job-prep houses, they exist to insure an educatedpopulace; a crucial component for any democracy.]

26. What a worthwhile endeavor. This will surely enrichour society. I will now crusade against the evils of sunglasses and all will bewell. [I’m not aware of any “evils” or harm caused bythe use of sunglasses, but shoes are responsible for the majority of our footproblems in the USA. Good luck on your crusade.]

27. As A Biology professor, does he realize he takes avery large risk of contracting hepatitis C from going barefoot??? [Blood transfusion and intravenous drug use are the leadingcauses of HCV infection. Going barefoot is never listed as even a minor causeof HCV from every source I’ve checked, so… NO, I don’t realize that I’m takinga “very large risk” of getting HCV by going barefoot because, well, I’m NOT. Ihope *you* are not a biology professor.]

28. Just what America needs, another leftwing loon. [You obviously know nothing about Liberty University,founded in 1971 by the Reverend Jerry Falwell. I am a rightwing loon.]

29. And these crazy nut job "professors" areteaching our next batch of Democrats. No wonder we are in such bad shape. [As stated above, I teach at Liberty University, aconservative Christian university. The majority of our students are pro-life,pro-gun, pro-family rightwing Republicans.]

30. Hey Danny Boy, Amen and Amen, but first we need toban the use of neck ties. First things first. What do you do in winter? [I hate neckties almost as much as I hate shoes. On mildwinter days I go barefoot. On very cold days or in deep snow I wear shoes.]

31. If you want to walk around with your feet stickingout, go to the jungle or the desert where this makes some sense. Otherwise, inmodern paved society, civilized humans who have fully evolved wear shoes andsocks. Forcing other people to see and smell your feet is not civilizedbehavior. [Only about 200 milliseconds of thought areneeded to see that the paved streets, sidewalks and polished or carpeted floorsin America are much more conducive to barefooting than a jungle or a desert,but you may not be capable of that much sustained thinking. Our civilized society has an unhealthy obsessionwith shoes and socks and that’s precisely what I’m trying to point out. Feet donot smell; shoes smell because they are incubators for bacteria and fungi(okay, *your* feet smell because you stuff them in shoes all day). Are peoplewho wear flip-flops “forcing other people to see” their feet?]

32. The reaon for shoes is to keep the feet warm andprotect them from injury. For a professor, he appears to be ideological and notrealistic or "smart". [Yes, the “reaon” forshoes is to keep the feet warm and protect them from injury. Gloves are usedfor the exact same purpose for thehands. Do you wear gloves all day, every day?]

33. The term 'whack job' comes to mind. [I guess I have no response to this.]

34. The professors opinion on going barefoot willabruptly change one he gets planters warts on the bottom of his feet. [The virus that causes plantar warts may be picked up bywalking barefoot, but those who *stay habitually barefoot* are at very low riskof contracting infection. Those who put on shoes are at an increased risk ofinfection because the shoe is a warm, stale, dark, moist environment thatinhibits the anti-microbial nature of the skin (and the desiccating effects ofwind and sunshine).]

35. Quite silly. One hopes that he is not paid on the taxpayer's dime. He should come up here to Canada and walk through the snowbarefoot. That should clear his head. [I work at aprivate university and do not receive taxpayer money. I lived in Montreal for 2years.]

36. I am not surprised! I have a suspicion that beinginfected with hook worms affects the brain. I thought it only effected southernevangelist preachers. Now it seems it has spread to collage professors to. [Hook worm has been essentially eradicated from the USA, andhookworm infection does not affect the brain.]

37. Even the Dharma Initiative wore shoes. And they wereon an island with a nice beach. They were a lot more sensible than that DanielHowell fruitcake. BTW, could he be related to Thurston Howell III? If I recallcorrectly, even Thurston wore shoes while on Gilligan's Island. [The Dharma Initiative? Gilligan’s Island? Dude, you liveTV-land. Turn it off and come back to the real world.]

38. Walk barefoot if you want and leave us alone! Yetanother self-appointed people-annoyer... [Oh, the irony.I have often been kicked out of malls, restaurants, etc. for being barefoot. Iwould LOVE to walk barefoot and BE LEFT ALONE.]

39. Who do you think that this wacked-out person votedfor in the last presidential election? Now you know why this country isscrewed. [It’s really none of your business who I votedfor, but it was *NOT* Barrack Obama.]

40. I wonder if he's ever flown on a commercial flightand had to use the restroom? Moonbat. [I have flown oncommercial flights barefoot. I have also been kicked off of commercial flightsbarefoot. I guess you missed my discussion of this on the TODAY Show. I usuallycan avoid public restrooms and I won’t use one barefoot if it’s so dirty Iwouldn’t use it shod. Many public restrooms are actually clean; they don’t poseany hazard.]

41. Seems all the nutjobs aren't in politics after all.[That is correct, there are nutjobs everywhere. I think theremay even be one where you work.]

42. Why even give this clown faux legitimacy with anarticle about him? It boggles the mind. My cat is more newsworthy for the factthat it cleans its netherregions each day. Professor Stoogotz, as my grandmotherwould have called him, comes from the same class of folks who hailed Obama asthe new Messiah. We see how well that one turned out.[One more time, I’m a conservative Republican; I did *NOT* vote for Obama. I dowish that going barefoot was a non-issue and un-newsworthy.]

43. Yeah, I want to see his filthy feet in a restaurantor classroom... yet another hippy moron teaching our kids.... Dogs also don'twear shoes. Maybe this guy was raised in a small village in Kenya... [A small village in Kenya? I have some excellent studentsfrom Kenya; your remark would probably strike them as racist. I guess you alsohate to see feet in flip-flops in a restaurant or classroom?]

44. It's the public health, stupid. One small step forbare footers, and a giant leap for diseases. Shoes are like foot condoms in thepublic health field. If you walk among strangers and defecating animals, thenfriends don't let friends do it bearback. Not that there is anything wrong withdiseases and worms. [There is a very low incidence ofbacterial and fungal infections in people who habitually go barefoot. Bycontrast, athlete’s foot and toenail fungus are rampant in the shoe-wearingpopulation (just browse the foot care products at your local pharmacy). Bare hands *are* a public health hazard; Ithink you should wear gloves all day to protect me from your nasty hands thatyou used to pick your nose with.]

45. What a poser. Until he gets out in the wilderness,including desert and snow and ice, like that barefoot hippie minimalistsurvival guy Cody Lundin, this guy's done nothing. [I’vebeen living barefoot for years and hiked/traveled on many different terrainsbarefoot, so I do have something on Cody.]

46. It is telling of the smug personality type of thosetaking up seemingly Innocuous Lifestyle Choices to eventually become hectoringproselytizers. Same with about 90% of vegetarians. It's not about them"doing their own thing," but trying to convince the rest of theirmoral one-upmanship. Give it a rest. [Again, oh theirony. I would love it if *you* and everyone else would let me walk barefootand *leave me alone.*]

47. I guess the idiot never heard of hookworm. [I have heard of hookworm, and –unlike you – I actually understandits epidemiology.]

48. Howell tells us how to solve the problems of theworld, problems he avoided by becoming a professor. I seriously doubt that hewould go barefoot in a New York taxi cab. [I have been barefoot in a New York taxicab, on my way to my interview on the TODAY show].

49. Akooky suggestion today, a serious one tomorrow, a demand the next, and afterthat, Obama takes over the shoe industry and shuts it down. That's how theliberal mind works.I've said it before and now is a good time to repeat it: Thebastards want us all to walk to work everyday on dirt paths in our bare feet. [I don’t know why everyone thinks I’m a liberal, but from theway these apparent conservatives behave, maybe I’ll become one.]

50. [And finally…] The article doesn't allude tothe prof's politics, but I suspect that he's just another kooky hippie leftist.He's not content with just doing something different and going about hisbusiness. He has to preach at people that EVERYBODY should be doing it! They'renot content to simply mind their own business, drive their Priuses, foregodeodorant, avoid eating meat, live in their eco-huts, etc. etc. etc. Seriously,why do the hippies think they have to compel everyone else to do things theirway? [OH THEIRONY. All I’ve ever wanted was to go barefoot and be left alone].

The Lightsome Life Reviews The Barefoot Book on YouTube

2011-08-30T06:29:00.000-04:00

Check out this VIDEO review of The Barefoot Book on YouTube by thelightsomelife. A video review! What a brilliant idea. She gives her favorite 10 reasons to go barefoot... what are your favorite reasons?

Tamarah Bartmess, a.k.a., thelightsomelife, is a Certified SimplyHealed™ Practitioner who seems to specialize in weight loss strategies and affirmations. According to the dictionary, lightsome means "carefree and happy and lighthearted" and "full of light." Tamarah says that as a SimplyHealed™ Practitioner, "It is my job and honor to help you ignite the brilliance within you."

Check out her website, and don't forget to watch her book review.

Shoes & Psychology

2011-08-25T14:41:00.000-04:00

This week marked the beginning of a new school year. Over 13,000 students have flooded onto the campus of Liberty University and more than 200 have found their way into my classroom. A few of these students knew a thing-or-two about me before they met me this week (they say I’m famous – or infamous), but most of them did not. And to them I got the joy of introducing myself and my “funny” ways.

So during these introductions I was reminded how many people (students or not) are skeptical when first presented with my proposition that shoes are harmful, unnatural and largely unnecessary. Many times they genuinely think I’m nuts. When I ask them to defend the use of shoes they usually recite a few myths and what-if’s but otherwise have no serious counter-argument. They say shoes are normal and going barefoot is not normal. The end.

But it’s not the end. Here’s the rest of the story: shoes are unnatural and going barefoot is natural and healthier, even if it’s not “normal.”

Those shoes may be "normal", but they are not healthy.

What amazes me is that so many people don’t know this already. They seem absolutely ignorant of the fact that shoes are unnatural, unhealthy and harmful. It’s not like it’s hard to demonstrate. Examples of the unhealthy nature of shoes are everywhere; just find someone and look down at their feet. I found a girl walking this morning and captured her gait on video. Watch the video closely; pause it anywhere and look at the still frame. Walking in those shoes is so obviously unnatural, unhealthy and down-right dangerous, yet no one bats an eye at her as she walks by; they’re too busy looking at me in my bare feet. I’m sorry people… I just don’t get it. I look around and see girls walking in shoes like those everywhere, and yet strangely all eyes are on me and my feet. Why is it not obvious to everyone else that these shoes are unnatural and unhealthy? Why is there so much resistance to the healthier option of ditching them? Why can she teeter onto the bus in those things, but I can’t walk on sure-footedly behind her? Why do security guards allow her to wobble through the mall on those monstrosities, but they escort me to the door? Why are bare feet not allowed on the airplane, but those things are?

Okay, enough questions; I need answers. But this is a problem of human psychology and, unfortunately, I don’t know much about that. Help!

*Two apologies: First, I apologize for the shaky video, my cell phone doesn’t have digital stabilizer. Second, my apologies to the young woman in the video… I’m not picking on you personally!!

Running Barefoot Just One Slice of the Pie

2011-08-09T17:55:00.000-04:00

Unless you’ve had your head in the sand this past year, you’ve no doubt heard about barefoot running. No less than five books were published in the past 12 months on this new running trend. While my book touches on barefoot running, the topic only consumes one of eleven chapters. The amount of space I devoted to barefoot running in The Barefoot Book mirrors the amount of barefoot time I spend running.

Obviously, as an advocate of all things barefoot, I’m thrilled with the explosive interest in barefoot running. As I describe in detail in the book, shoes dramatically alter the way we run and they encourage body-wrecking poor form. It’s simply a fact that running shoes are a major cause of running injuries (references in The Barefoot Book).

However, while I’m excited by the growing popularity of barefoot running, I’m equally frustrated that so few barefoot runners seem to be taking the next logical step: barefoot walking.

Here’s the deal: shoes are bad for your form – and hence your body – when you run. But guess what? Shoes are also bad for your form – and hence your body – when you walk. (Indeed, shoes are bad for your posture even just standing). This is the first and foremost message of my book: shoes are bad for you, period. “But,” you might say, “walking is far less impactful than running so wearing shoes while you walk shouldn’t be as bad wearing shoes while you run, right?” Yes and no. Yes, walking is less impactful than running, but the average person takes far more walking steps than running steps throughout their week. All of those steps add up, as does the damage from bad walking form induced by your shoes.

Think about it. There are 168 hours in a week; how many of those hours do you spend running? Personally, I only spend about 6 hours per week running, on a good week (so as you can see, I’m not an avid runner; I’m a recreational runner). This amounts to just 3.5% of my week. If my activities were graphed on a pie chart, then running makes a rather small slice. The rest of my waking moments are spent almost entirely either sitting, standing or walking. Since walking is actually fantastic exercise, many health experts recommend walking 10,000 steps per day. If you’re not taking those steps in a zero-drop shoe or in a shoe without a toe spring, arch support, cushioning and all the other bunkum that goes into modern footwear, then you are walking with bad form and hurting yourself. Just as with running, the best way to correct bad form is to ditch your shoes and walk the way nature intended – barefoot.

The easiest way to walk barefoot more is to adopt an increasingly barefoot lifestyle. You simply can’t spend significant time walking barefoot if you put on shoes every time you go to the grocer, or the mall, or the cinema, or to dinner, or to work, or to church, or to…

This gets to the heart of the second message of my book: we as a culture must chill-ax when it comes to going barefoot already! There is nothing wrong with (and so much right with) going barefoot, why is it so taboo? And for those of you who buck the norm to run barefoot, what keeps you from bucking the norm to walk barefoot? Consider your feet not just when you’re running, but all day long. Treat them right… walk barefoot. And the more of us that do it, the less taboo it will be.

Captain America's Fake Feet

2011-08-08T14:26:00.001-04:00

Okay, apparently this is old news (from the Daily Mail Sept. 2010), but I just heard of it and my head has been spinning over it all day. Here’s the scoop: There is a scene in the new Captain America movie in which our hero tackles a gun-toting woman to keep her from killing someone. Our heroic captain, dressed nonchalantly in a white t-shirt, khaki pants and bare feet, tackles the woman with a full-speed running jump just as she pulls the trigger. Perhaps unfortunately, superheros like Captain America don’t exist in real life, and evidently neither do their feet even in the movies.

The stunt actor in this scene was not barefoot. He was wearing prosthetics designed to make him look barefoot.

There are so many insanities here I don’t where to start unpacking them. First, the guy is a STUNTman who tackles a stuntwoman from a running start. Actor Chris Evans and his stunt double participate in many harrowing scenes throughout the movie, but they apparently cannot run across a street barefoot!

As you can see from the picture, the actor tumbles hard on the city street with the murderous woman in tow. His arms are bare and his torso covered only with a flimsy – practically see-through – t-shirt, but God bless his poor feet… they must be protected. They cannot withstand even a few steps on pavement.

What has happened to us? How can we think our feet are so useless and pathetic and incompetent that even a stunt man can’t use them for something as innocuous as running across pavement? Since I have run thousands of miles barefoot on pavement, clearly I should be getting paid more for my “stunt” that even a professional can’t pull off.

And yet… yet… we want them bare. Why not just film the scene with shoes? Why bother with the awkward prosthetics to give the impression of bare feet? Is it that most people believe our feet are so inept that having our hero in this scene barefoot adds to his “superhero-ness”?

I’m truly disturbed by this. I guess the only good news to take away from here is that the powers-that-be wanted to show bare feet in this scene even if they couldn’t bring themselves to bare any feet.

If there are any trained psychologists reading this post, then please… contact me. I would love to pick your brain about this bizarre foot-anxiety that plagues the “civilized” world.

NEW BAREFOOTERS: DON’T BE A JERK

2011-07-19T11:58:00.001-04:00

HOW TO HANDLE CONFRONTATION

I’ve been living barefoot for a long time now. In fact, I’ve been going barefoot long enough to “mature” somewhat as a “barefooter.” Lately, lots (and I mean LOTS) of new barefooters have been coming to me for advice and here’s something I’ve noticed: all of them are frustrated and many of them are acting like jerks. Looking back it’s painfully obvious to me that I also acted like jerk when I first started barefooting. Let me explain...

Going barefoot is natural and healthy; wearing shoes is unnatural and unhealthy. When a person first makes that discovery and begins taking his or her first bare steps into a new way of living, they often feel liberation, exhilaration and sometimes evangelistic. They have had an “ah ha” moment after all, a life-changing epiphany. They realize that they have discovered something wonderful and transforming while everyone else around them is still in the dark. Those unenlightened, shoe-touting people that surround them constantly warn of the hazards of going barefoot, of the necessity of good support, of the diseases just waiting to get picked up, of the laws and health codes that prohibit free feet… all the things the new barefooter has just discovered is absolutely untrue and indeed completely opposite from reality. This, this is the source of their frustration.

Then their frustration is magnified by intolerance. For all the self-praise we heap on ourselves for being a tolerant nation, we are shockingly intolerant of bare feet. No one enjoys being confronted, especially by a complete stranger in front of other people, but when you first start going barefoot in public in the USA confrontations are almost guaranteed to happen. As a culture we seem to celebrate the unnatural (such as tattoos, body piercings, industrial diets and walking on 6-inch high heel stilts)* while reproving the natural and healthy (like going barefoot). Unfortunately, for many of us, confrontation brings out the jerk in us. We are confronted and we retaliate, feeling wrongfully mistreated because we know, after all, that we are right. We are angered because that idiot restaurant manager should know the health codes that govern his business, right?

Confrontations led by emotions like these are bound to backfire. What started as a relatively minor incident (in the mind of the manager, not the barefooter who was already terrified in the parking lot) has now exploded into a major ordeal that Mr. Manager will not soon forget. Bare feet are now officially banned and on the radar. You, the barefooter, have blown it and you and your feet are not welcome here.

There’s a better way to handle these confrontations.

Going barefoot is a joy, or at least it should be. Don’t let the ignorance of those brainwashed into believing all the wrong things about feet and shoes steal that joy away from you. It’s so easy for both parties in a confrontation to become defensive and argumentative. Resist this urge. Instead, always try to educate with joy bubbling from your feet and a huge smile on your face. It’s not about proving you are right, it’s about liberating another person, planting a seed of revelation in them that can grow. You will often have to retreat before the other person will hear you, but in this case retreat is not defeat. Leave them with some information to chew on. If you care this much about going barefoot, then take the time to make a business card or brochure (or use the ones already available on the internet). Most of all, leave them impressed with how happy and polite you are, not with the feeling of ‘what a jerk’ that barefoot person was. Remember that you were once a brainwashed, shoe-wearing person, too.

Go barefoot. Go happy.

PS. Here’s another little secret about public barefooting: You can go into a store one day and be kicked out, then go back the next day and be accepted. Whether you are accepted or rejected depends largely on who is working that day and what kind of mood they’re in… unless you put up a fight. Then, you will always be rejected… banned and on the radar. Don’t fight!

*For the record, I have nothing against tattoos or piercings, I’m merely pointing out that they are unnatural.

Shoes: A Public Health Hazard

2011-07-17T21:50:00.000-04:00

In The Barefoot Book I compared wearing shoes to smoking cigarettes. While this is an obvious exaggeration, there is truth in the comparison: both shoes and cigarettes are unhealthy and lead to physical and functional maladies in the body.

In the 1950’s a few doctors first proposed that tobacco was a health hazard, especially Dr. Ernst L. Wynder. In a panic, the major tobacco companies set up puppet research centers in 1954 that spent more money on propaganda than medical study. Phillip Morris tried to “buy” Dr. Wynder for forty years but without success, thanks to the integrity of this great scientist. Even as late as the 1990’s the tobacco giant Brown & Williamson conducted a massive smear campaign against Dr. Jeffery Wigand, one of their executives-turned-whistle-blower on the industry’s efforts to hide the dangers of tobacco. Today, however, the risks of tobacco are common knowledge and public health has improved dramatically with the concomitant disuse of cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Presently, I’m asserting that shoes are a public health hazard. As far as I can tell, shoes are responsible for at least 90% of the foot maladies we suffer from in America. While many podiatrists continue to insist that shoes are “necessary” and members of the general public jeer and mock my position (See my Mean People Suck post), they are all on the wrong side of the medical facts. Given this truth, I hope that fifty years from now most people will be going barefoot much more often than they do today.

Be ahead of the curve. Go barefoot for better health.

TOMS Burning Candle at Both Ends

2011-07-14T18:12:00.001-04:00

Many of us in the barefooting movement have done considerable research on TOMS, “Inc.” and believe that founder Blake Mycoskie exemplifies the very worst of capitalism. Many people mistakenly think his for-profit company is a charity. His method of tugging on people’s heartstrings to make a buck (or a million) has been blogged about before [1], but now Blake has sunk to a new low. His “charity” has always been implicitly (if not explicitly) Christian. I personally heard the man speak at a Catalyst Conference several years ago where he attested to the Christian impetus behind his work. For those who don’t know, Catalyst is self-described as “the leadership filter for what’s next in the church” and is one of the largest annual gatherings of Christian leaders in the United States. Mycoskie is slated to speak at the conference again this year in October.

But it seems that Mycoskie is just as disingenuous with his religious principles as he is in business and is now caught with his candle burning at both ends. The founder of TOMS appeared at an event hosted by Focus on The Family to lure them into a distribution partnership, but when his friends on the left discovered this they balked. Subsequently, Mycoskie apologized for rubbing elbows with Focus! He said, “Had I known the full extent of Focus on the Family’s beliefs, I would not have accepted the invitation to speak at their event." The extent of their beliefs is that they focus on the traditional family. Of course Mycoskie, a member of Mosaic church in LA, knows fully the beliefs of Focus. His appearance and subsequent “apology” only demonstrate that Mycoskie is happy to play on both sides of the fence in order to sell, er, donate, another shoe.

Well, Mycoskie, your Christian charity has been busted for not being a charity, and now you're busted for not being Christian. Eventually, you’re going to run out of wax.

PS. A Day Without Dignity is a great video about why “charities” like TOMS are bad for local economies.

1.References:

http://shoelessliving.blogspot.com/2011/04/toms-shoes-one-day-without-shoes-and-my.html

http://societyforbarefootliving.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/toms-shoesbad-assumptions/

http://societyforbarefootliving.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/podoconiosis/

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5569751-one-day-without-shoes-leads-to-soulsearching-about-soles

http://ahcuah.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/one-day-without-shoes/

Crime & Punishment... The Barefoot Way (Revisited)

2011-07-14T17:31:00.000-04:00

Shut down by a barefoot woman

(I originally blogged on this last year… hence the “revisited.”)

A member of the Society for Barefoot Living (SBL) was told recently by a cafeteria manager that the cafeteria would be *shut down* if the health department found him in there barefoot. I myself have been told the exact same thing by a restaurant manager. Either this is a standard line you learn in food management school, or this is one seriously common myth.

As far as I know, for every law in the United States, it is the person who breaks the law who pays the penalty. It works that way for theft, murder, tax evasion... everything. Except apparently for the health code "laws" that regulate restaurants and businesses. Evidently in those cases, person X (restaurant manager) loses his business and his job because person Y (restaurant customer) committed a “crime.” This is ludicrous. How can anyone think such a thing?

What if person Y goes into the cafeteria not only barefoot, but completely 100% just-like-the-day-he-was-born naked? What happens to the cafeteria then? Well, nothing. Mr. Nudie, however, will probably get metal bracelets to wear (at least, in most parts of the USA). The person who commits the crime, does the time.

Silly. But many, many people believe the law works differently when you're barefoot.

Book of the Year Award

2011-06-28T00:12:00.000-04:00

I am pleased to announce that The Barefoot Book has won ForeWord Magazine's Book of the Year Award in the Body, Mind & Spirit category.ForeWord magazine announced the winners of this year's awards on Saturday, June 25th at the annual American Library Association conference in New Orleans.

If you haven't read The Barefoot Book yet, pick up a copy of this award-winning book. After all, there's no better time to try this "barefooting thing" than in the middle of summer! So go ahead, kick off your shoes! (Now!)

Going Barefoot? Good For You!

2011-06-10T21:06:00.000-04:00

Barefoot running has moved from weird to phenomenon in the past few years. Many thousands – perhaps millions – of people have kicked off their shoes and at least tried the barefoot running thing. That’s good. Running is a complex biophysical process and barefoot is the most natural way to do it. People are discovering that the bells-and-whistles that have sold running shoes for the past few decades do more harm than good since they change that complex, biophysical way in which we run.

Now, what about walking?

It should be no surprise that shoes change the way we walk, too. And surprise again, those changes are negative and unhealthy. Should you then walk barefoot? Yes! Even if you’re an avid runner you take many more walking steps per day than you do running steps. If you’re walking in shoes you are putting extra stress on your joints and causing them undue wear-and-tear. Undoubtedly, the damage done by walking in shoes is slower than that done while running in shoes because walking is less impactful, but you’re taking more walking steps than running steps. And the damage adds up over the years.

But is barefoot walking weird? Well, remember... modern shoes have only been on the scene for a short time compared to the eons in which man has walked barefoot – or nearly so – on the Earth, so it’s definitely not weird as human locomotion goes. However, we do live in a shoe-addicted culture, so yes; it may be weird in the sense that it’s not (yet) normal. Perhaps you will attract a few stares if you walk around the neighborhood shoeless, but like running, all it takes is a few people willing to kick off their shoes and stroll to move it from weird to phenomenal.

So kick 'em off and take a walk.

PS. Tomorrow (June 11, 2011) is YOUR DAY WITHOUT SHOES, an excellent opportunity to try the barefoot walking thing!

A Culture of Costumes

2011-06-07T23:30:00.000-04:00

I just finished an interview with Proof Negative on FreedomizerRadio. Proof and I and Bob Neinast were contemplating why going barefoot in public is still considered taboo by so many people in America. Obviously, I’ve been thinking about this a lot in the last few years, but I recently came to a new realization which may partly explain the phenomenon: we are a culture of costumes.

Think about it. We have a costume, er… uniform, for almost every occupation: policeman, nurse, fireman, priest, janitor, doctor, soldier, scientist, businessman… the list could be very long. Perhaps the only ones to really escape the costume party are the artsy types; they are instead often known for their lack of conformity (we call it creativity).*

Even when we’re not working we are dressed up in costume to identify ourselves: slut, gangsta, prep, nerd, redneck, jock, church lady… this list is long, too, and each group has their own costume.Nearly all of these costumes – at work or at play – include shoes. Without shoes the costume is incomplete and for all but that most diverse group of non-conforming, artsy types an incomplete costume is unacceptable.

Fortunately, our costumes can and do change over time; it’s called fashion.

For the health of our feet and for the sake of our personal freedoms, let’s make bare feet an acceptable part of our costumes. You can help by going barefoot this Saturday, June 11, which just happens to be Your Day Without Shoes. Of course, you can also buy and share a copy of The Barefoot Book. ;-)

*Intellectuals tend to avoid costumes, too. One reason I became a professor is because profs are high in creativity and low in conformity. Indeed, it seems the more ‘rigid’ the uniform the less creativity is usually involved in the task. This is not always a bad thing, but it’s clearly not always a good thing, either.

What Flying Can Tell Us about Our Culture

2011-05-28T06:07:00.005-04:00

I just got back from Portland, Oregon where I spoke at the Dare 2 Go Bare(foot) workshops. Most of you reading this know that I was tossed from an airplane once (on the ground thankfully) for being barefoot. Yet again, I was asked this weekend to put on shoes (flip flops, actually) by a flight attendant. I politely asked why as I donned my footwear; she said being barefoot was unsanitary. Okay, I can forgive her ignorance about shoes, feet and germs, but then she added something less forgivable: “This [the plane] is my office and I don’t allow bare feet in my office.”

Wow. Okay. That’s the attitude of customer service right there.

Of course, we all know that customer service is long dead in America. I am 41 years old; I vaguely remember genuine customer service as a kid. I’m sorry Miss sour-faced flight attendant, but I paid big bucks to fly that plane and I chose your airline over your competitors. It was a privilege for you to have me as your customer. (BTW, I should also mention that I purchased my ticket one month in advance, but the airline cancelled the flight two hours before takeoff. Thanks, Delta.)

So, okay, flying the not-so-friendly skies reminds us that customer service is gone. What else does flying tell us about ourselves?

Just Do as You’re Told, Dodo Bird

Why do we have to turn off all electronic devices while the plane takes off and lands? I’m told that the Mythbuster guys tackled this one already, but it doesn’t take much thought to conclude the whole routine is pointless. How is my nook or my cell phone going to disturb the plane? All of these electrical devices have to meet certain FCC requirements including, Part 15: “(1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference it receives.” Plus, the average cell phone can communicate with a cell tower some 15-20 miles away (Wikipedia says up to 45 miles). Since passenger planes typically fly 5-6 miles in altitude every cell phone on the ground reaches the plane; not to mention all the GPS and other satellite signals the plane is flying through. And remember, your ipod has to be turned off only when taking off or landing, the very moments when the plane is (1) closest to the ground with all those walking/driving electronic device users, and (2) in the most populated areas of the country with all those walking/driving electronic device users. Shouldn’t everyone on the ground near an airport have to turn off their cell phones? I guess that would include all 10 million people in NYC since they all happen to be within a few miles of an airport. Oh, and finally, people use cell phones in private planes with no problems (yes, I have flown in a private jet).

And yet, sitting in my seat on the plane, the flight attendant demands that I turn off my nook while the plane takes off and if I don’t comply? Well, she has the authority to have me arrested. And according to my captain, shutting down my nook is required by the FAA. I wonder if the guy who thought Guam might tip over was involved in passing that requirement.

*WOW: Just minutes before I posted this blog ABCnews reported on this myth: http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/myths-flying-open-jet-door/story?id=13695338.

Sink or Swim

Let’s now turn our attention to those seat cushion flotation devices. Is anyone out there aware of a single instance in the history of aviation in which a 747 went down in the ocean and that floaty seat cushion came in handy? If your plane goes down in the water your seat cushion may float, but I doubt you will notice it. Having seat cushion parachutes makes a little more sense, but even that is unlikely to save you if your plane is going down.

Hmmm... As I write this I think of US Airways flight 1549 that landed in the Hudson river a few years ago. I supposed the floaty seats may have come in handy there, but the plane was evacuated in 90 seconds (maybe a bigger miracle than the safe water landing) so I doubt most passengers had their seats in hand. Still, since the system is in place is seems more cost-effective to leave it going and, hey, they are useful for that one-in-a-million survivable crash landings in water.

Shampoo Bad. Scissors Good

Here’s something else I don’t understand: The woman beside on the plane was cross-stitching the whole time (even during take-off and landing). She showed me her sharp, pointed scissors and collection of sewing needles and said she’s never had a problem flying with them. What? They confiscated my shampoo because the bottle was too big!

I know this is a cynical blog post; I just get this way when flying. But I will end on a positive note: Remember how Delta cancelled my flight just before departure? Well, the only reason I made it to my speaking engagement in Portland on time is because a wonderful lady named Ruth V. gave me her seat on another flight. Yes, Ruth, I will pay it forward! Thank you and God bless you for your kindness.

So when it comes to commercial flying, we have (1) no customer service, (2) we’re required to jump through ridiculous hoops for no logical reason (3) and it’s all enforced with an attitude. On the plus side, there are passengers like Ruth that make the whole thing bearable.

Mean People Suck: 50 Great Reasons to Guard Your Tongue

2011-04-19T21:17:00.004-04:00

50 of my favorite comments about *ME* taken from the great wide web. All quotes are exact, typos and all. I couldn’t help but comment on some of them; my comments are [red in brackets].

1. Another idiot academic heard from. Go walk on broken glass, MORON. Does this jerk have a Piled higher and Deeper degree?

2. Maybe he should just return to the planet of the apes, where shoes are not a necessity.

3. The professor should get himself checked for hook worms. They may be affecting his mind.

4. He'd like to put tens of thousands, who make shoes, out of work. Mainly very poor people in India. Never mind the sock makers. What a loser!

5. if he gets his way, it will put all the women who are making a better living for their families in Africa out of luck. Let's just tell 'em: "Go back to being barefoot and pregnant!"

11. Sounds like one of the loonies from woodstock.the good old days no bathe,no shave,mary jane,drugs and rock n roll.now a professor,this is an american success story

12. I know there's gotta be a connection to the earth only being 6,000 years old and the "professor's" bare feet....

13. Shoes are required in places of business not for health reasons, but for liability. Should he step on something and injure his unprotected foot, the business is liable. This guy is an idiot. [I got a paper cut on my hand in a library once; guess I should have sued them because I wasn't wearing gloves?]

14. Professor Howell's undergraduate education in biology should have included a course in parasitology. Hookworns, roundworms, whipworms, etc. - all can be acquired by walking barefoot in contgaminated soil.

15. And this nutty professor has tenure. [I wish]

16. HELLO! Read the last sentence. He's selling a book! This is not "news," it is self promotion. [I didn't write the article, the Washington Post did]

17. As a Liberty University graduate, I can assure you that there is no requirement to sign or state that one believes in Creationism. Also, I can tell you that most people at Liberty likely think this guy is as much of a nut about the barefoot thing as those who do not go there. [Yep, I am hated on both sides of the aisle.]

18. I had a real professor at a real college whom didn't wear shoes. But comparing RIT to Liberty is like comparing an educated Harvard law scholar to a dingbat from Alaska.

19. I hope the professor gets plantar fasciitis and then see how he does with out shoes.

20. Nuts! What's this clown going to do during winter time? What is he accomplishing other than to show what an eccentric he is? He's a narcassist! What a waste!

22. As a physician, I think undergraduate university professors in general are unsightly pieces of waste material whether we are talking Liberty U or Harvard.

23. C'mon hippie, put on your shoes already for Christ sake. You look like a frikin idiot!

24. This "Barefoot Porfessor" is the perfect example of the professorial personality: No Commonsense!

26. What a worthwhile endeavor. This will surely enrich our society. I will now crusade against the evils of sunglasses and all will be well.

27. As A Biology professor, does he realize he takes a very large risk of contracting hepatitis C from going barefoot???

28. Just what America needs, another leftwing loon.

29. And these crazy nut job "professors" are teaching our next batch of Democrats. No wonder we are in such bad shape.

30. Hey Danny Boy, Amen and Amen, but first we need to ban the use of neck ties. First things first. What do you do in winter?

32. The reaon for shoes is to keep the feet warm and protect them from injury. For a professor, he appears to be ideological and not realistic or "smart".

33. The term 'whack job' comes to mind.

34. The professors opinion on going barefoot will abruptly change one he gets planters warts on the bottom of his feet.

35. Quite silly. One hopes that he is not paid on the tax payer's dime. He should come up here to Canada and walk through the snow barefoot. That should clear his head. [I did live in Canada, for 2 years.]

37. Even the Dharma Initiative wore shoes. And they were on an island with a nice beach. They were a lot more sensible than that Daniel Howell fruitcake. BTW, could he be related to Thurston Howell III? If I recall correctly, even Thurston wore shoes while on Gilligan's Island.

38. Walk barefoot if you want and leave us alone! Yet another self-appointed people-annoyer... [Oh, the irony]

39. Who do you think that this wacked-out person voted for in the last presidential election? Now you know why this country is screwed.

40. I wonder if he's ever flown on a commercial flight and had to use the restroom? Moonbat.

41. Seems all the nutjobs aren't in politics after all.

42. Why even give this clown faux legitimacy with an article about him? It boggles the mind. My cat is more newsworthy for the fact that it cleans its netherregions each day. Professor Stoogotz, as my grandmother would have called him, comes from the same class of folks who hailed Obama as the new Messiah. We see how well that one turned out.

45. What a poser. Until he gets out in the wilderness, including desert and snow and ice, like that barefoot hippie minimalist survival guy Cody Lundin, this guy's done nothing.

46. It is telling of the smug personality type of those taking up seemingly Innocuous Lifestyle Choices to eventually become hectoring proselytizers. Same with about 90% of vegetarians. It's not about them "doing their own thing," but trying to convince the rest of their moral one-upmanship. Give it a rest. [Again, oh the irony.]

47. I guess the idiot never heard of hookworm. [hook what?]

48. Howell tells us how to solve the problems of the world, problems he avoided by becoming a professor. I seriously doubt that he would go barefoot in a New York taxi cab. [I have been barefoot in a New York taxi cab, on my way to the TODAY show].

49. A kooky suggestion today, a serious one tomorrow, a demand the next, and after that, Obama takes over the shoe industry and shuts it down. That's how the liberal mind works.I've said it before and now is a good time to repeat it: The bastards want us all to walk to work everyday on dirt paths in our bare feet. [I don’t know why everyone thinks I’m a liberal, but from the way these apparent conservatives behave, maybe I’ll become one.]

50. [And finally…] The article doesn't allude to the prof's politics, but I suspect that he's just another kooky hippie leftist. He's not content with just doing something different and going about his business. He has to preach at people that EVERYBODY should be doing it! They're not content to simply mind their own business, drive their Priuses, forego deodorant, avoid eating meat, live in their eco-huts, etc. etc. etc. Seriously, why do the hippies think they have to compel everyone else to do things their way? [OH THE IRONY. All I’ve ever wanted was to go barefoot and be left alone].

The Privilege of Pavement

2011-04-19T08:53:00.001-04:00

A comment I hear regularly from shoe-wearing runners and doctors who are cautious of going barefoot is this: “Feet may be made for going bare on natural terrain but not on modern surfaces.” I have to tell you, this is just another misconception to add to the long list of misconceptions about the human foot and footwear. Let me give three reasons why I think this is so.


Rickshaw runners enjoy a modern surface

First: I don’t think much of the earth is covered with the soft, manicured grasslands that most people must envision when they say “natural terrain.” It seems to me that the ground is generally hard and rocky in most undeveloped places where people live. Plus, I don’t think our ancestors really spent much time walking or running through “natural terrain.” Cities and villages are nearly as old as humanity itself and those villages are connected by roads (or at least well-worn paths) which – again – are hard and rocky. There are plenty of examples of primitive peoples living today much as their ancestors did for thousands of years. In parts of Asia and Africa, for example, rickshaws are still pulled by barefoot workers on cobblestone roads, a tradition that goes back for millennia.

Second: My friend Daniel Lieberman at Harvard (the other barefoot professor) has demonstrated in his research that impact forces on the body are virtually zero when running barefoot, even on the hardest man-made surfaces like steel. Thus, the body’s shock-absorption mechanisms are perfectly capable of handling the hardest of terrains. By the way, impact forces are not zero when running on hard surfaces in shoes.

Third: In my personal experience I find pavement and concrete the most enjoyable surfaces to walk and run on. I began running barefoot in 2006 because I was sustaining twisted ankles from trail running in shoes. I’ve not injured my ankles once since I switched to barefoot, but I find myself doing more road running these days. Why? Because it just feels better and it takes less concentration than navigating rocks and roots on a trail (yes, I am lazy).

Yesterday I walked through a wild field that was littered with thorns and was almost undoable even for my tough soles. Wow, it never felt so good when I reached the edge of that field and stepped onto pavement! Walking through “natural terrain” can be extremely unpleasant and I consider it a privilege to live in a time when smooth, paved roads and sidewalks are available.

Don’t be afraid of pavement. Take off your shoes and go.

Supporters walk a mile in heels & flip flops

2011-04-10T10:00:00.002-04:00

Yesterday marked the first day of a new annual event to promote sexual assault awareness and to honor women who have survived sexual assault. The event was created by Kalyne Weisplatt and sponsored by the Santa Cruz sheriff's department. I discovered it by this news article by KION 46/FOX 35 news. This is an honorable cause I do not want to disparage that cause in any way, so please don’t misunderstand what I’m about to say.

A figure from The Barefoot Book
showing the effect of heels on body
weight distribution. Adpated from
Rossi (2001).

When I first read the headline I thought, “What on earth could this be? A mile in heels?” After reading the article, I understood their cause (which I applaud), but I think their method could do more to raise awareness for the barefooting cause than sexual assault.

As I read the article, one line in particular caught my eye: “They [the organizers] had decorated flip-flops for guys who couldn't walk a mile in heels.” Am I the only one who reads this statement as a red flag for heels?

In addition to raising awareness about sexual assault, I think this event raises some questions about footwear:

• Should women be wearing shoes all day that a man cannot tolerate for one mile?

• WHY can’t men walk a mile in heels? Is it because walking in heels is so unnatural that it takes substantial practice to master? Is this why women suffer from knee arthritis 4x more often than men? Is this why women have bunions more often than men?

• Should our society discourage the use of heels by women? Over 20,000 women/year end up in hospitals because of high heels.

Next year, I think they should forget the flip flops and have the men walk in heels, too. In fact, maybe THAT would be a good event for us barefooters to hold. What do you think?

I Need Your Help!

2011-04-06T12:51:00.000-04:00

Kids do not have to wear shoes to school in Aukland.

I’ve never done this before, but I’m asking my shoe-wearing friends to help me out. If you are not a barefooter, if you have no desire to become one, then we barefooters could really use your help.

I ran into a friend recently who got kicked out of two stores in as many days (for being barefoot, of course). She went through the usual routine that has become a habit for us barefooters: she asked why, she was told the myths (health code, liability, etc.) and she debunked them, then she was ejected from the building anyway. After going through similar situations myself for the past five years it has become abundantly clear that having the facts [1] on your side is irrelevant (that is an especially hard pill to swallow for the one who literally wrote the book).

My friend’s recent confrontations illustrate the discrimination that barefooters face: if I go barefoot into a business today I run a significant risk of being bullied and thrown out. Seriously, if you are not a barefooter you likely do not understand the level of vitriol I’m talking about – I’ve been called an idiot and disgusting by managers; I’ve had security called on me to escort me to the nearest exit; I’ve been asked to leave an airplane sitting on the tarmac! In short, I have literally been treated like a criminal for not wearing shoes.

If you think this is wrong, then help us.

Sadly, I believe businesses will continue to discriminate against barefooters until/unless enough people go barefoot that they are forced to stop. Kroger cannot kick out 10% of their customers! To do so would impact their bottom line and even they would see that kicking out that many people is rude on their part. So what can you do to help us?

Go barefoot.

Now you don’t have to go barefoot all the time, just please consider going barefoot in public occasionally. Every now and then just slip off your flip flops and go into that store barefoot. If you don’t get hassled, then no harm came of it. Indeed, it will be beneficial because it will demonstrate to others that going barefoot in public is okay. If you do get hassled, then just put on your shoes and go about your business. Preferably, you can explain to the shoe police [2] that you are not a barefooter but you are sympathetic to their right to go barefoot and that’s why you did it. Who knows, the managers and policy makers may actually respect and listen to you; they certainly are not respecting and listening to us.

So there you have it. Please consider helping us barefooters by simply kicking off your shoes when you run your next errand. By doing so, you may play a significant role in helping to end discrimination against us. And hopefully, you will enjoy the experience!

*****

[1] For example, it is factually correct that there are no health codes that prohibit bare feet in a grocery store in Lynchburg, VA; it is also factually correct that going barefoot is healthier and safer than balancing on the 3-inch heels the store manager is wearing.

[2] Shoe police = that employee that forces you to put on your shoes.

Foot Anatomy 101-Biofeedback

2011-04-01T15:35:00.005-04:00

Continuing our Foot Anatomy 101 series, I’d like to discuss the role of natural biofeedback to the proper mechanics of walking and running. Natural biofeedback [1] is the gathering of information from body receptors in order to monitor and fine-tune body functions. The brain relies on sensory receptors to gather that information.

There are three types of receptors in the human body: exteroceptors, interoceptors and proprioceptors. Exteroceptors gather information from the outside world; interoceptors gather information from internal organs and proprioceptors keep track of body position. When the brain issues a command to move it receives biofeedback from receptors to ensure that the movement is going as planned. When walking, much of that biofeedback comes from exteroceptors in the soles of the feet. Biofeedback has been underappreciated by podiatrists and foot specialists for decades, but scientists (and runners) are beginning to gain a deeper understanding of its role in human ambulation.

With an estimated 100,000 - 200,000 exteroceptors in the sole of each foot, your feet are among the most nerve-rich parts of your body. This fact alone should demonstrate the importance of touch to walking and the benefit of going bare for walking properly. But why are there so many nerve endings in the feet? How do those sensitive soles aid walking?

Stand up and walk around (barefoot). When standing and walking, the sole of your foot is the sole part of your body in touch with the environment [2]. Sensory information from the foot is used to protect the foot itself from injury, but it’s also used by the brain to make subtle adjustments in your gait to protect bones and joints all the way up your body and to maximize the efficiency of your movements. In others words, it makes walking more fluid and graceful and safe. It takes only milliseconds for sensory information from your foot to reach your brain and for your brain to respond by making adjustments to muscles in your legs, back and arms. By contrast, walking in shoes is far more clumsy and inefficient due (in part) to impaired biofeedback. Muscle contractions, impact forces and joint range-of-motion are measurably different when barefoot [3-8].

Shoe-Induced Neuropathy

A typical walking shoe possesses a hard rubber outer sole and a soft cushioned insole. In addition, people generally wear socks with shoes. These materials lift your feet an inch or more from the ground and silence the biofeedback from exteroceptors. In shoes, the brain receives almost no useful information from the soles of the feet. This lack of sensory feedback is called neuropathy and is considered pathological and dangerous under any other circumstance than shoe-wearing. Because foot biofeedback has been unappreciated for so long, shoe-induced neuropathy has also been ignored by doctors for decades.

Walk Barefoot? On Gravel?

Most people have extremely tender feet after years of wearing shoes. This tenderness is partly due to the soft and thin skin which has developed from lack of use, but the perception of pain takes place in the brain not the body. Most of us have been told to wear shoes since early childhood; consequently, our brains are unaccustomed to receiving tactile information from the feet. On those rare occasions when we do walk barefoot, our brains receive ‘sensory overload’ and interpret the strange sensations as painful. Deaf persons who receive their hearing through cochlear implants report their first sounds as painful for the same reason. However, once the brain figures out that the new stimulus is not harmful, the pain subsides. Indeed, what was once considered painful is now re-interpreted as pleasure.

Yes, you can walk and run barefoot on gravel and many other rough surfaces. Gravel poses no threat to your feet, and once your brain discovers this (which can take more than an act of will but time and experience) you can walk on it just fine. And the biofeedback you receive will ensure that your feet and joints are working optimally in addition to providing you with new vistas of pleasure.

Of course, you also need to toughen those tender soles!
**********

Other Foot Anatomy 101 posts: The Arches, Windlass Mechanics, The Special Skin of the Feet.

Footnotes/References:

1. Artificial biofeedback is an attempt to willfully regulate involuntary body functions being externally monitored.

2. The two other nerve-rich body parts – your hands and mouth – are also parts that frequently contact the environment. The use of touch by your hands is obvious, but your mouth must also use touch to monitor what enters your body. Your mouth is sensitive enough to detect an unwanted stray hair in your bite of cheeseburger.

3. Cunningham et al. (2010). The influence of foot posture on the cost of transport in humans. Journal of Experimental Biology 213:790.

4. De Wit et al. (2000). Biomechanical analysis of the stance phase during barefoot and shod running. Journal of Biomechanics 33:269.

5. Wolf et al. (2008). Foot motion in children shoes – a comparison of barefoot walking with shod walking in conventional and flexible shoes. Gait & Posture 27:51.

6. Stacoff et al. (2000). Tibiocalcaneal kinematics of barefoot versus shod running. Journal of Biomechanics 33:1387.

7. Seth (1977). The foot and footwear. Prosthetics and Orthotics International 1:173.

8. Lieberman et al. (2010). Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature 463:531.

Two Gospels

2011-03-31T10:49:00.008-04:00

I had the opportunity to speak at my church the other day. How did a barefoot professor get invited to speak at church on a Sunday morning?

My church (Blue Ridge Community Church) is rather large – we hold three services on Sunday morning and greet 2,500 people each week. At BRCC, we often teach on themes, or series, that span several weeks or months. We started a new series recently called The Body which examines the analogy God makes in Scripture that his people – the church – constitute his body (Jesus being the head). To kick off the series they wanted an expert on the human body to come “Wow!” people on the wonders of the human body machine. For some reason they chose me. J So I gave a 20-minute crash course on how the ear achieves hearing with some flashy 3D animation and I guess they liked it because they’ve asked me to come back and speak again.

So why is this on the barefoot professor’s blog? Does this have anything to do with foot health or the barefooting movement? Of course; here it is.

I always go to church barefoot. Always. The regular attendees at BRCC know me well and they accept me barefoot.* However, our church is a seeker church; with concert-style worship (including a smoke machine) and preachers in blue jeans, we are good at drawing in unbelievers and then getting them hooked (or “saved”). Indeed, we have well over 100 people baptized every year at BRCC! So, on any given Sunday we will have a mixture of regulars and newbies in attendance.

Despite the casual atmosphere at BRCC, the church officially bans bare feet on the stage; speakers, singers and musicians must wear at least flip flops. In observance of this rule I wore a pair of flip flops to give my dashing talk on the human ear, but then an interesting thing happened. After the first service many people commented on my shoes and felt it was too unusual for me. In fact, so many people commented that I was told I could teach barefoot for the second and third services. Wow! That is a major departure from the norm and I was truly “feeling the love” from both the congregation and the leaders of Blue Ridge.

But I wore my flip flops on stage for both remaining services. Why?

Gospel = good news.

The word gospel means good news. I have two gospels in my life; I call them my ‘greater gospel’ and my ‘lesser gospel’. The lesser gospel is that you can live barefoot and that living barefoot is more natural and healthier than living with shoes. My greater gospel is that Jesus is the Messiah, the hero who came in and saved the day, the one who reconciles evil humanity to a Holy God.

So why did I wear shoes on stage when I was told I could teach barefoot? Because nothing trumps the greater the gospel, not even the lesser gospel of barefooting. The apostle Paul encouraged us to become all things to all people so that we might win some to Christ. The fact is that I live in a shoe-wearing society and being barefoot on stage might be a distraction to some people; I will not let my love for my lesser gospel deter people from the greater gospel.

Now for a point of clarification: I DID take off my shoes in both the second and third services and teach barefoot, but only after I took the stage and started teaching shod. I gave the newbies in the audience a few minutes to get to know me before I casually slipped off the flip flops in the middle of my talk. In this way, I hope I gave them a taste of both my gospels!

**********

* In fact, bare feet are perfectly okay at BRCC; dozens of people can be seen barefoot there on Sunday mornings in the summer.

Stepping on Nails

2011-03-02T22:47:00.001-05:00

Feet from the Barefoot Hikers of VA

A wonderful article on barefoot living entitled Living Without Shoes appeared on ABCNews.com today. Overall, I thought the writer (Meg Wagner) did a fantastic job of finding the right people to interview (myself excluded) and presenting an accurate picture of why many of us choose to go barefoot. Reporters, however, seem to have a genetic need to balance every position with a counter-position (I'm not neccessarily opposed to that) and so Wagner interviewed a podiatrist to give the standard barefoot-is-dangerous warning from the medical community. Unfortunately, the podiatrist Wagner interviewed didn't even provide scientifically sound reasons for keeping your shoes on.

Podiatrist Dennis Frisch says that he is not anti-barefoot and that barefooting has its place, but "outside isn't that place." He says that "a blister or corn caused by wearing an uncomfortable shoe will take a couple of days to heal on its own. But a cut caused by stepping on undesirable material while barefoot could potentially become infected and be a severe medical problem."

Okay, here is where I have my problem.

Any cut has the potential to become infected and be a severe medical situation, but which is better... cutting a shod foot or a bare one? Is it better to step on a nail barefoot or wearing a sneaker?

A number of scientific studies have been published on the subject (references below). In all of them the conclusion is definitive: shoes increase the risk of infection, particularly infection by pseudomonas bacteria.

Pseudomonas does not live on human skin, but it thrives in shoes (indeed, pseudomonas is the cause of that notorious stench). It's thus not surprising that in one study it was found that roughly 50% of children wearing shoes acquired a pseudomonas infection but zero barefoot children did. It should be noted that a pseudomonas infection can be seriously dangerous, even fatal, especially when delivered deep into the body in a hard-to-clean puncture wound. In addition, I've had more than one doctor tell me that it's not uncommon for a millimeter-sized piece of shoe sole to get embedded in a puncture wound when wearing shoes. Having a foreign object buried a half-inch into your body is rarely a good thing.

So, based on the scientific evidence, Dr. Frisch should be warning us that 'stepping on undesirable material [while shod] could potentially become infected and be a severe medical problem.'

Oh, well.

References:
1.Fisher MC, Goldsmith kJF, Gilligan PH. Sneakers as a source of pseudomonas aeruginosa in children with osteomyelitis following puncture wounds. J Pediatr 1985; 106: 607-09.
2.Green NE, Bruno j. Pseudomonas infection of the foot after puncture wounds. South Med J 1980; 73( 146-49).
3.Jacobs RF, McCarthy RE, Elser JM. Pseudomonas osteochondritis complication puncture wounds of the foot in children. A 10 year evaluation. J Infect Dis 1989; 160: 657-61.
4.Jarvis JG, Skipper J. Psedomonas osteochondritis complicating puncture wounds in children. J Pediatr Orthop 1994; 14: 755-9.
5.Johanson PH. Pseudomonas infections of the foot following puncture wounds. JAMA 1968; 204: 170-72.
6.Laughlin TJ, Armstrong DG, Caporusso J, Lavery LA. Soft tissue and bone infections from puncture wounds in children. Western Journal of Medicine 1997; 166( 2): 126-8.
7.Niall DM, Murphy PG, Fogarty EE, Dowling FE, Moore DP. Puncture wound related pseudomonas infections of the foot in children. Irish Journal of Medical Science 1997; 166( 2): 98-101.
8.Verdile VP, Freed H, Gerard J. Puncture wounds to the foot. J Emerg Med 1989; 7: 193-99.

A Letter From Belgium

2011-02-24T12:35:00.000-05:00

Dear Dr. Howell,

As soon as I heard about your book I decided it was a Must to read and tried to obtain it. Living in Belgium it took me nearly four months to acquire it through Amazon. It was worth every second of the wait. As soon as I got it I read it through a first time in four hours. WONDERFUL !!!

I find it amazing and a great quality that a scientist is able to get all the scientific information across in simple words that everybody can understand.

The BFB explains so well and in such detail how the human foot functions or is supposed to, and how shoes interfere with the functioning of nature’s creation.

It was, and still is, great to read what shoes are doing to you, from just a benign blister, ouch, to deformities that may require surgery. I never gave a thought to the quantity of chemicals that go into the production of shoes and remain there.

Thank you for debunking the myths, although laws and regulations here in Europe may be different from those in the US, I don’t believe that there are any laws over here that make walking or driving barefoot illegal, but as in the US it’s a widespread belief.

I have been barefoot myself for the last 38 years, that is for about 95% of the time and I still find it a wonderful way of living, walking, hiking. I have been working as a nature guide for the last couple of years and work barefoot for most of the time. This usually raises eyebrows and provokes comments and questions to which I respond to the best of my knowledge. I’m sure that your book will be most helpful in the future to be able to better explain the “why” question.

The only negative comment I could mention about your wonderful book is that it’s pretty hard to obtain it on the old continent. None of the major bookstores could obtain it.

Thank you for your kind comments, dear reader in Belgium! I'm glad it was worth the wait.

[Note: The Barefoot Book is now available for nook and soon for the kindle and other electronic devices. That should make global access much easier!]

Skechers Gets Sued

2011-02-16T23:14:00.006-05:00

UPDATE: Skechers is getting into more legal trouble as even more people are getting injured by these shoes. Read about it here.

Skechers, the maker of Shape-Ups toning shoes, is being sued by a woman who claims the shoes severely injured her body. Holly Ward wore the shoes at work and during her leisure time for five months before developing severe pain in her hips. It turns out she obtained stress fractures in both of her femur bones. The femur, incidentally, is the largest and heaviest bone in the body; fracturing that bone is no small feat.

I warn of the dangers of these types of shoes in The Barefoot Book.

Skechers Shape-Ups are modeled after the MBT shoe. Both shoes possess a rounded sole that purportedly offers a workout just by wearing them. Scientific studies have shown that MBT shoes work muscles differently, but there’s no evidence that these shoes ‘tone’ your body, especially the buttocks which are undoubtedly the focus of consumers. However, it is obvious (or at least should be obvious) to anyone who knows anything about the biomechanics of human ambulation that these shoes are dangerous. Not only are MBT and Skechers unstable to the point of risking falls, they alter the human gait so dramatically that injuries are bound to happen. Just ask Holly Ward.

How do toning shoes alter the human gait? They convert the natural stepping motion into a rolling motion. Unfortunately, this is not really unique to toning shoes; virtually all shoes make this conversion, but toning shoes take the ‘rolling step’ to the extreme.

I hope this lawsuit will educate more people to the hazards of toning shoes. Perhaps this will move us one step closer to having warning labels put on shoes that dramatically alter gait.

Now, if only one of those 20,000 women per year put the hospital by high heels would sue their shoe-maker!

The Answer To The Question.

2011-02-12T09:14:00.001-05:00

I recently received a question from a woman who wants to go barefoot more often but finds it painful. Rather than responding directly to her I want to respond publicly because I think her real issue is not with her feet but with our culture. Consequently, it’s an issue all of us who want healthy, shoeless feet must deal with. Before I respond, let me share with you her comment in its entirety:

“I have very pronate feet, fairly wide hips, and an abnormally large Q angle. When I have gone almost an entire day barefoot, my back, hips, knees and feet are aching and painful for the next day after - there have been nights where I have had trouble falling asleep because of how much discomfort going barefoot inflicted on my body. In other words, for me going barefoot HURTS! I've worn orthotic inserts since I was about ten years old and this has affected the types of shoes I've worn: I have to find wide shoes that accommodate my inserts, I can't wear dress shoes with heels, and I can't wear sandals. Would going barefoot more often help someone like me, in your opinion? Because all it's ever brought me is more pain and discomfort.” – Kaje

Let me start by focusing on the phrase “When I have gone almost an entire day barefoot…”

Walking barefoot is natural; walking in shoes is unnatural. Shoes demonstrably (and negatively) change the way we stand, walk and run and thus create a host of foot problems, not the least of which is muscle atrophy and skeletal deformation since the shoe is essentially a binding cast. Shoes affect more than the feet: the elevated heel found in virtually every shoe demands postural adjustments all the way up the body and the narrow toe box, toe spring, arch support and elevated heel conspire to encourage over-pronation, which also affects your ankles, knees and hips. In addition to shoes, this dear woman has worn orthotics since she was ten years old, but… she has never spent a full day barefoot. What Kaje is saying it similar to: "When I take the cast off my arm for almost an entire day my elbows and shoulders hurt." Unfortunately, this situation describes most of us in ‘civilized’ society and there is no hope that we can ever have strong, healthy feet if that’s the case.

The daily wearing of shoes has wrecked our feet. If you’ve worn orthotics your feet are doubly-wrecked. Our feet have literally been debilitated by footwear and healing can only come by removing the shoes and rehabilitating our feet by miles and miles and miles of barefoot walking and running. For better or for worse, the brutal truth is that the damage done by thousands of hours of shoe wearing cannot be undone by going barefoot a few hours here-and-there on nights and weekends.

Kaje, you say your feet hurt if you spend too many hours barefoot. I predict the pain would subside if you could stay out of shoes for an entire month or two, but can you do that? If you could, your feet would become rehabilitated and stronger and healthier than ever. Will your circumstances permit you to remain barefoot for weeks or months at a time? Will your feet hurt during the rehab process? Probably yes. The soreness you presently feel from going barefoot stems from the fact that you are using muscles in ways you don't use them in shoes; it's similar to the soreness you would feel after a day of skiing. However, if you could commit to spending just several months barefoot [1], your feet will strengthen, your gait will correct itself and your entire body will benefit. (Indeed, with rehabilitated feet and gait your wide hips and Q-angle will probably not be an issue). At the end of the rehab process, putting on shoes will feel so obviously unnatural and awkward you will likely not do it. Welcome to full-time barefooting.

And this is why we as a society must allow bare feet back into the public square. There is a growing number of people who are fed up with the ill-effects of shoes on their bodies and they want to exercise the healthier option of living without shoes as much as possible. Consequently, our culture must adjust. I think our culture will adjust because the barefooting ‘movement’ is growing rapidly and once you’ve experienced the benefits of going shoeless there is no going back! Personally, I’m at a place where I snub the social pressure and refuse to let anyone make me put on shoes [2]. More and more people are adopting this attitude.

Finally, I want to add that it’s high-time podiatrists took the blame for our wrecked feet. Society has told us to wear shoes, but podiatrists have done nothing to oppose this and have in fact endorsed shoe wearing and – even worse – carelessly promoted orthotics. It’s time for podiatrists to apologize [3] to Kaje and inform the public of the many negative consequences of wearing shoes and endorse and promote barefoot living for healthier feet.

So Kaje, the answer to your question – as always – is to ditch the shoes. I hope you can keep them off long enough to rehabilitate your feet and reap the benefits. Let me know how it goes!

--------
1. I say “just” several months barefoot because, after all, you’ve spent years in shoes.
2. The only exception being my boss because – other than the shoe rule – I really love my job. If I didn’t love Liberty University, believe me I would ditch the job and move; there are hundreds of colleges out there that would let me teach barefoot.
3. There is a place for orthotics and maybe Kaje genuinely needs them, but orthotics should always be the exception, not the rule.

I Have A Dream

2011-02-03T01:48:00.003-05:00

A few weeks ago we celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr. day. We paused to remember the (peaceful) struggle of American blacks against an oppressive, discriminatory society. We took a day to celebrate a man who dreamed America could be different. I have tremendous respect for MLK, Jr., for his accomplishments and for his daring vision. On MLK day I gathered with my wife and three children around a computer screen to watch his “I have a dream” speech on YouTube. It is with utmost respect for the man and it’s in the spirit of his vision that I modify his words to apply them to my own dream, my own vision of an America free of oppressive discrimination.

You see, I have dream that Americans will one day be free to live barefoot. My dream may seem trivial, but it is not. It is not trivial because at its core it is a struggle against an oppressive attitude toward differences. It is a dream that we will stop shunning those who think outside the box. We say we celebrate such thinking, but we lie. In truth we actively oppress innovative thinking and it’s only through much toil and sweat on the part of such thinkers that real change ever happens among the masses.

I am white. I am educated. Indeed, I am privileged to be among the small portion (less than 1%) of the population with an esteemed doctorate degree – in biochemistry no less, one of those hard sciences that has obtained almost idolistic authority in Western thought. As ‘Dr. Howell, university professor’ I am a respected member of my community. As a barefooter, I have felt the sting of blatant and hateful discrimination: I have been called derogatory names; I have been denied a table at a restaurant; I have been forced off an airplane; I have been escorted by security to the nearest exit. Most ironically, I have been denied a seat on a bus by a black female driver. But I have a dream that one day doing something as healthy – and legal – as going barefoot will be acceptable to my fellow Americans.

I have a dream that little white children and little black children can play together barefoot in the gymnasium. I have a dream that one day employees will be recognized for the quality of their work rather than the price of their wingtips or pumps. I dream of a day when the ‘barefooter’ is applauded for making the more natural and healthier choice to shun her shoes; a choice made not only for the health of her feet but maybe because she also refuses to subvert herself to the role of temptress in high heels in order to be a corporate player.

Truly, I dream of a day when shoes (or the lack thereof) are a non-issue.

They say you can tell a lot about a man by his shoes, but I long for a day when we will be judged by our hard work, our commitment to excellence, our creativity and ingenuity… by the content of our character and not by the shoes on our feet.

Am I insulting Dr. King? Am I trivializing his dream or making a mountain out of a molehill? I don’t think so because ultimately my dream is not about feet, it’s about the end of discrimination in all its forms. It’s about acceptance. It’s about seeing the world a little more like God himself sees it, for we know that “man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7).

So yeah, I have a dream. Won’t you join me? Together we can not only free our feet but we can enlarge our hearts to embrace all people despite our differences.

The Difference A Worldview Makes

2011-01-14T23:26:00.005-05:00

A largely unknown reality of scientific research is that facts do not speak for themselves. Rather, they are interpreted within a framework called a paradigm, or worldview. Everyone has a worldview, and our worldview flavors the way we interpret information. Our worldview is largely formulated by the culture in which we find ourselves living. Scientists, though trained to be unbiased, are not immune to their culturally-induced worldviews.

For example, in a 2008 study researchers at Auburn University concluded that flip-flops were orthopedically hazardous.* While the research they performed was top-notch, I believe their conclusions were erroneous because their starting assumption – derived from their worldview – was mistaken.

What is their faulty assumption? That walking shod is natural. While they don’t explicitely state this assumption in their reports, it appears evident to me based on their conclusions.

The Auburn team observed that wearing flip-flops causes “sore feet, ankles and legs.” Indeed, this is often true when shoe-wearing people switch to flip-flops in the summer (it’s sometimes called ‘flip-flop-itis’). Auburn researcher Justin Shroyer notes, “We found that when people walk in flip-flops, they alter their gait, which can result in problems and pain from the foot up into the hips and lower back.” Mr. Shroyer is absolutely correct in that wearing flip-flops alters the human gait; what I believe he fails to recognize is that the alteration is a change back to the natural. Constant shoe-wearing had previously altered the subject’s gait to an unnatural one. Switching to flip-flops does cause pain in some people because the walker is returning to a more natural gait – one to which s/he is not accustomed.

Mr. Shroyer and his colleagues also observed that walking in flip-flops led to shorter steps (i.e., shorter stride lengths) compared to wearing athletic shoes. And he found that, in flip-flops, walkers’ heels hit the ground with less vertical impact force and they tend to grip more with their toes during push-off. These findings are consistent with those of other researchers in the field of foot biomechanics; however, the changes were considered abnormal and negative by the Auburn research team. Scientists are now realizing that these barefoot (and flip-flop) induced changes in walking lead to lower impact forces and less stress to leg joints than shod walking (due primarily to shock absorption by the arch and gait adjustments from tactile feedback), and this is generally recognized as a good thing. In addition, the Auburn researchers imply that it’s unnatural to use the toes for push-off and they don’t acknowledge that chronic shoe-wearing is responsible for the shortened tendons and weak muscles that cause the pain flip-flop users feel in the first place. Instead, because they apparently regard the shod gait as natural, they label flip-flops as “bad” and caution folks against wearing them. This is a logical conclusion if you start with the assumption that walking in shoes is natural. If instead you assume that barefoot walking is the natural condition, then the conclusion you draw from their study is very different.

The Auburn study was performed in 2008. In 2011 we now realize that comparing the 'flip-flop' gait to the 'shod' gait is the wrong comparison. Instead, we should be comparing the 'flip-flop' and 'shod' gaits to the 'barefoot' gait. When we do that, we see that walking in flip-flops is more like walking barefoot and is therefore the healthier shoe option.

Different Assumptions = Different Conclusions

Observation	Interpretation #1 (assuming shod gait is natural)	Interpretation #2 (assuming barefoot gait is natural)
1. wearing flip-flops resulted in pain in feet, ankles, hips and legs	walking in flip-flops causes abnormal & painful changes in gait	walking in flip-flops mimics barefoot walking & reveals unnatural shoe-induced changes in gait
2. wearing flip-flops resulted in shorter stride lengths	long strides should occur (predominantly in front of the body’s center of gravity?)	short strides should occur (predominantly below and behind the body’s center of gravity?)
3. wearing flip-flops resulted in less heel impact forces	gait pattern should be heel-to-toe and heel should take most impact (like in a shoe)	gait pattern should be short leading to landing flatter on arch which absorbs impact forces (as when barefoot)
4. wearing flip-flops resulted in more toe-gripping action	the body should roll on the forefoot into the next step. (function of the toe appendages?)	the toes grip the ground as the body is pushed into the next step; flip-flops may induce unnatural toe gripping

* http://education.auburn.edu/news/2008/june/flipflop.html

2011 - The Year of Barefoot Living?

2011-01-01T13:43:00.000-05:00

Last year was a banner year for barefooting. Although Christopher McDougall’s Born to Run was released in 2009, I think it had its biggest impact on the world in 2010. This is probably because the book was published in July; people spent the next few months (i.e., the winter 2009) reading the book and then put it into practice in spring 2010. That summer several more related books hit the market: Jason Robilliard’s The Barefoot Running Book and Michael Sandler’s Running Barefoot continued the running-barefoot-is-best theme, but my book, The Barefoot Book, took the concept a step further and demonstrated how shoes are not just harmful when running but also when walking, standing and when just plain wearing them. Like Born to Run, The Barefoot Book was published in the summer. Will the public, after a year of experimenting with barefoot running and a winter to contemplate barefoot living, be ready this summer to take barefooting beyond exercise and into daily life? I believe the answer is YES.

If 2010 was the Year of Barefoot Running, then I believe 2011 will be the Year of Barefoot Living. Maybe I’m just filled with New Year wishful thinking, but I truly believe the tide will turn this year with respect to going barefoot in public. I base this hope on several observations:

1/ The Barefoot Book is generating a lot of conversation. Since the release of the book, I have been interviewed by The Washington Post, Popular Science magazine and dozens of radio shows from New York to New Zealand. I’ve appeared on national and cable television, the Drudge Report and even a documentary in Korea. Clearly, people are interested in the topic of barefoot living and the mainstream media is picking up the conversation. Wow! [Most of these can be found at www.thebarefootbook.com]

2/ Positive comments are on the rise. Every now and then an article appears online about some ‘barefooter’ or living barefoot. In keeping with the popularity of the subject, those articles usually generate a lot of reader comments. In 2010, there appeared to be more articles than ever on the subject and the comments seemed more positive than in the past (I haven’t done a rigorous study on this). My Washington Post article written by Daniel De Vise, for example, generated over 150 comments in just 48 hours. By contrast, the ten following articles written by De Vise obtained no more than 14 comments. The Today Show article about me garnered 128 comments and most of them were positive.

Online articles about barefooting still receive negative comments, but they are the same old comments we’ve seen for years (e.g., broken glass, dog poop, etc.). This time, however, those negative comments are being overwhelmed with intelligent responses debunking the myths. And when the article itself is negative, it gets slammed! The article “Poly students should eliminate barefoot trend” quickly received 26 responses, all which were critical of the article and in favor of barefooting.

3/ Barefoot running precedes barefoot living. In my own experience and that of many barefoot runners I know, barefoot running led to more barefoot living. It’s an obvious and natural next step. Once you experience the thrill of running barefoot you want to experience the thrill of driving barefoot, shopping barefoot and just living barefoot. No one denies that barefoot running went main stream last year. Will all those runners start going to the mall barefoot? No, but some will and all of them will be more open to the idea. And even those who don’t run see others running barefoot and so the idea that bare feet are okay in public is gaining traction.

The days are getting longer (in America) and summer is coming. Let’s make 2011 the Year of Barefoot Living!

INFECTIOUS FEARS

2010-11-29T17:36:00.003-05:00

My friend Chanin Nuntavong alerted me to an article written recently by podiatric surgeon Dr. Marybeth Crane. Although the article is titled “Barefoot Passengers in Disgusting Airports,” the article is not about traveling barefoot, it’s about people walking barefoot through security checkpoints, which, by the way, is required at most airports these days.

I’m discovering that the biggest hurdle most people have to going barefoot is the fear of infections. Most people believe there are armies of germs just waiting to attack naked feet and then render the barefooter lame or blind… or dead (Dr. Crane: “You may actually be saving your life with a pair of socks!”). Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fear of getting infections by going barefoot is irrational though understandable given the cultural ‘brainwashing’ we receive throughout childhood – doctors, camp counselors, teachers and parents constantly tell kids that going barefoot is dangerous. It’s an irrational fear however because it’s not based in fact or human experience, and I’m starting to get perturbed at chronically-shod people (like Dr. Crane) infecting the populace with erroneous ideas about barefooting. If you really want to know the hazards of going barefoot, wouldn’t it be best to ask a barefooter?

I recently asked several of my full-time barefooter friends if they’ve ever suffered an infection from going habitually barefoot. The answer was universally “No.” Several of them, in fact, became barefooters to rid themselves of continuing fungal infections (e.g., athlete’s foot or toenail fungus). I stress that these people have been living barefoot for years. I have been barefoot 95% of my life for the past three years, spending as much as 6 months continually barefoot, and like my barefooting friends I’ve suffered no ill-effects from doing so; I’ve in fact benefitted from the experience.

Dr. Crane confesses to believing that airports are disgusting. I can only assume she also thinks fast food restaurants are disgusting, hotels are disgusting, malls are disgusting… heck the whole world must be disgusting. I can’t imagine going through life feeling this way. The irony is that one of the most disgusting places you can put your foot is inside a shoe (if by disgusting she means “germy”). Most people are beginning to realize that shoes are incubators for bacteria and fungi, hence the horrible smell of shoes and the plague of fungal infections in the feet.

Let me address some of the specific threats mentioned by Dr. Crane at disgusting airports:

Plantar warts. This virus infection is caused by walking in wet environments, such as public locker rooms and swimming pools. This is another good example of how most of our shoe behavior is backwards. Normally, we go barefoot in the locker room, then strap on shoes and socks for the rest of the day. As I advise in The Barefoot Book, this is the worst thing we can do. Instead, wear shoes in the public shower and go barefoot the rest of the day. Any fungus you perhaps pick up in the wet environment will likely wear off in the following minutes and hours, saving you from infection. By contrast, putting your foot into a shoe only provides a warm, moist, stale environment for the fungus to grow and infect.

Herpes. I’ve never heard of anyone having herpes on the feet except for congenital cases. I’m not aware of any adult picking up herpes by going barefoot. Can anyone provide case studies or examples?

Fungus. It is well-established that wearing shoes leads to foot fungus, going barefoot eradicates it. See The Barefoot Book for more on this.

Staph. Dr. Crane says that staph bacteria are “growing stronger and infecting more people every day” (are those shod people?) and that MRSA is “more common than ever before.” Again, I don’t know of a single case of someone getting MRSA by going barefoot. Indeed, it is well-known that the best place to get MRSA is in a hospital, the covering of your feet being irrelevant. Outside the hospital, MRSA infection usually occurs via the fingernails and scratching. The unpleasant truth is that people (especially kids) pick their noses and then scratch their itches, like bug bites. The MRSA, which lives harmlessly in the nose, is thereby transferred to the broken skin of the bug bite and infection ensues. This is a good example of why hand-washing and good hygiene are so important.

Finally, Dr. Crane mentions puncture wounds in the article, but she does not mention pseudomonas. Although staph lives harmlessly on the skin all over your body, pseudomonas does not. Pseudomonas thrives in shoes, however, and in one study 50% of shod children with foot puncture wounds obtained a pseudomonas infection; zero barefoot children did (the reference for this study is in The Barefoot Book). Even getting a puncture wound is safer sans shoes. It should also be mentioned that frequently wearing shoes thins and softens your plantar skin, making you more vulnerable to infection. Frequent barefooting toughens and thickens your skin, and keeps it healthy and dry, which combats microbial infection.

Unfortunately, experts like Dr. Crane are still spreading misconceptions about barefooting to the public. In truth, going barefoot is generally safe and is almost always healthier than wearing shoes.

*Dr. Crane's article can be found HERE.

Barefoot Fridays!

2010-11-22T16:57:00.000-05:00

Several years ago one of the girl* dorms at Liberty University began a tradition called Barefoot Fridays. Each Friday the girls of that dorm ditch their shoes and spend the entire day barefoot. What a fantastic idea! One that the whole nation should adopt as a new American tradition.

For many of us, shoes are not a daily requirement – not for physical reasons anyway. If you don’t work, safely spending the day barefoot can be just as simple as kicking off your shoes and leaving them off. Even many jobs do not require shoes for safety reasons. If we’re honest, the only reason shoes are “required” is to acquiesce to our cultural ‘shoe rule.’ Whether you work in an office, a classroom or in retail, ask yourself when and why you really need footwear on the job. Could it be possible to actually work barefoot?

If your place of employment is not yet ready to accept full-time barefoot employees, maybe they are willing to adopt Barefoot Fridays. Many businesses already allow a relaxed dress code on Fridays, why not extend that courtesy to our feet? Why not give our feet just one day each week to breathe? Why not one day of the week to give our shoes a vacation and our feet the benefit of a full-day workout? Ask your boss if Barefoot Fridays could be an option at your workplace, and remind him or her that 90% of our foot problems in America can be traced back to the shoe; healthier feet could translate into healthier and more productive employees. If you are the boss, give Barefoot Fridays a try for your employees, at least for a month or two and then re-evaluate the policy.

We’ve all heard the oracle: “Everything in moderation.” When it comes to footwear, however, we are far from moderate. With just a few exceptions we wear shoes all day, every day, everywhere we go and for everything we do. Adopting Barefoot Fridays could be a great way to give our feet some sensible barefoot time.

This Friday, go barefoot! When others ask you about it just say, “Haven’t you heard? It’s Barefoot Friday!”

*Liberty University has separate male and female dorms.

Foot Anatomy 101-The Special Skin on Your Feet

2010-11-08T15:30:00.002-05:00

In this third post in the Foot Anatomy 101 series I’d like to discuss the unique “feetures” of the skin on your feet. Since so much about the feet are are unlike other parts of the body, it will probably not surprise you at this point to learn that the skin on your feet is also unique, being especially adapted to the demands of walking and running. Here are some of the special features of ‘foot skin’:

• Prints. The skin on the sole of your foot possesses prints. Only the palms of the hands and the soles of the feet possess these tiny undulating folds. The pattern of skin prints on the hands and feet are wholly unique for each person – even genetically-identical twins have unique fingerprints and footprints. Your skin prints are also immutible, meaning they do not change over time. For these reasons fingerprints and footprints can be used for identification. But why do we have these prints on our hands and feet? Answer: To improve grip. The prints on your hands help you to grab and hold objects; the prints on your feet increase traction for walking and running. Like the tread on a car tire, those skin folds augment friction to better enable us to grasp the ground and reduce slipping. Unlike car tires which go ‘bald’ and must be replaced, our skin is self-replenishing, prints and all. Of course, our skin prints are rather useless inside a shoe and many shoe soles are smooth and extrememly slippery by comparison, especially under wet conditions.

• Innervation. The soles of your feet are one of the most nerve-rich parts of your body. The three most highly innervated parts of your body are your hands, your face (particulary the lips) and your feet. Why the feet? The feet (when bare) are the only part of your body that is in constant contact with your environment. With over 100,000 nerve endings per foot, tactile feedback from the soles of your feet provide a wealth of information to your brain about the ground upon which you tread. Whether you are walking or running, that information is used to make adjustments (within milliseconds) to your gait, the goal always being to reduce impact forces on your joints and body. Of course, this information is also used to warn you of dangerous terrain or injurous objects. Unfortunately, most footwear creates a ‘shoe-induced neuropathy’ because the thick outersole and cushioned innersole eliminate sensory feedback.

• Sweat Glands. The soles of your feet have a tremendous number of sweat glands. In fact, the three ‘sweatiest’ parts of your body are your scalp, your hands and your feet. Although rich in sweat glands, these parts of your body rarely sweat enough to produce dripping sweat; that only occurs under extremely hot conditions or during vigorous exercise. Usually those sweat glands are producing micro-droplets of sweat that quickly evaporate and remove heat from the body. Of course our hands and head are almost always bare and we cover them only under extreme conditions, but our feet are regularly locked away in both shoes and socks. The sweat and heat are thus trapped and the dark, moist, warm, stale conditions inside a shoe become a breeding ground for bacteria and fungi. Shoes are the basic cause of athlete’s foot and the best way to avoid or even cure athlete’s foot is to go barefoot as much as possible. Enclosing the feet in shoes and socks may also lead to difficulty in regulating body temperature, a condition I call ‘hot foot syndrome.’

• Attachment. The skin of the sole of the foot is attached to your body exceptionally tightly. The skin on the palms of the hands are similarly attached. You can easily demonstrate this on your hands and feet by pinching the skin. On the top of the foot (and hand) the skin is attached rather loosely to allow flexibility; the skin there can be pinched up and moved about readily. By contrast, the skin of the sole of the foot (and palm of hand) is attached firmly and cannot be easily pinched up or moved side-to-side. This feature increases the skin’s resistance to the high sheer forces experienced when walking and running.

These are just four ways the skin on your foot differs from skin on other parts of your body. There are other differences, too, but these four illustrate the point that the feet are remarkably designed for their functions – standing, walking and running. The skin works best when the foot is bare and kept bare as much as possible. Constantly wearing shoes weakens and softens the skin, making our feet tender and prone to injury. The lack of proper ventilation in closed shoes and socks keeps the skin moist and makes it more vulnerable to invasion by microbes and infection while simultaneously creating the perfect environment for such microorganisms to grow. Going barefoot is healthy for your skin. Callouses and blisters are frequently caused by shoes but rarely result from walking barefoot. With plenty of exposure to sun and air, the skin on your feet will become healthy, strong and beautiful.

Foot Anatomy 101-Windlass Mechanics

2010-11-05T10:41:00.003-04:00

In this second installment of the Foot Anatomy 101 series I’d like to discuss what’s known as the windlass mechanism. As discussed in the previous post, the foot arches are the centerpiece of foot function, and the medial longitudinal arch in particular is central to windlass mechanics.

The ‘truss’ of the medial longitudinal arch is formed by the calcaneous (heel bone), the midtarsal joint and the head of the first metatarsal. The plantar aponeurosis forms the ‘tie-rod’ that spans from heel to toes. The attachment of this aponeurosis to the toes beyond the metatarsophalageal (MTP) joints forms the basis of the windlass mechanism.

A windlass is a mechanical device for lifing heavy weights. It usually consists of a spool around which a rope is cranked, the weight being lifted by the rope. A common example is the crank, rope and bucket used to raise water from a well.

In the foot, a windlass is created by the plantar aponeurosis passing beneath the MTP joints, in particular the first MTP joint. When the big toe is dorsiflexed during walking, the aponeurosis winds around the first MTP joint and pulls the heel and toes slightly closer together, raising the medial longitudinal arch and also locking the bones of the foot. It’s an ingenious way of stiffening the foot and converting the supple ‘landing’ foot into a rigid ‘propulsion’ foot.

Unfortunately for shoe-wearing people, none of the above windlass foot mechanics happens in shoes, and this is one reason why shoes are so damaging to feet. Whether you’re wearing a wedge or a sneaker, the foot is immobilized inside the shoe. The toes are kept in a dorsiflexed position by the toe spring (or by virtue of the heel height in a wedge or pumps); the MTP joint does not move at all and windlass mechanics is eliminated. In addition, the constant strain on the plantar aponeurosis likely causes it to weaken (along with associated foot muscles) and this may be a leading cause of shoe-induced flat foot and fallen arches, which is epidemic in shoe-wearing societies.

For proper foot biomechanics… walk barefoot!

Foot Anatomy 101-The Arches

2010-10-28T18:23:00.002-04:00

“The human foot is a masterpiece of engineering and a work of art.” Leonardo da Vinci

The human foot is one of the most masterfully-designed parts of the body. It is often ignored and mistreated, but it is literally the foundation of the body, the base upon which we stand. It is also the only part of the body (when bare) that is in constant contact with our environment. In honor of this humble organ called the foot, I will embark on a series of blog posts on foot form and function. In this first post of the series, I’d like to take a look at the foot arches.

The Human Foot ArchesThe foot arches are the centerpieces of the foot. There are three arches as defined by the skeleton of the foot: the medial longitudinal arch, the lateral longitudinal arch and the transverse arch. Each arch is defined by a curvature of bones secured in position by a “keystone” bone. Many people think of the arches as rigid structures, but they are actually quite flexible and change shape considerably when unrestricted.

When standing and walking the arches are crucial for proper distribution of body weight. As you walk, the bones of the arches guide your weight from your heel along the outer edge of your foot and then across the ball of your foot to the base of your big toe. (From there, your big toe is used to propel you into your next step). During this process the arches “collapse,” especially the medial longitudinal arch. This collapsing is a normal and natural process for shock absorption. Also, the elastic soft-tissue structures of the arch stretch and retain some of the load energy they experience (up to 20%) and then snap back when you lift off, helping to propel you forward.

Of course, none the above really works that well in a shoe, which immobilizes the natural flexing, twisting and stretching movements of the arch.

Arch “supports” are detrimental to foot arches. Consider this: What other part of the body needs support? We don’t wear neck supports for our neck, or arm supports for our arms. For a time, some factory and construction workers wore back supports, but it was quickly discovered that those supports actually weakened the back and increased injuries. The same logic holds true for arch supports. When a supporting structure is placed under the arch it can no longer stretch, flex, collapse or spring the way it’s supposed to. The result is weakened arches… and flat foot. As discussed in The Barefoot Book, several studies have been done now comparing the feet of barefooters to shoe-wearers. Guess what? The shoe-wearing people have 3x higher incidence of fallen arches and flat foot.

I hope you enjoyed this quick summary of your foot arches. Give your arches a break today; kick off your shoes and walk barefoot!

The Barefoot Running Book (2e) by Jason Robillard

2010-10-26T21:14:00.000-04:00

The second edition of The Barefoot Running Book by Jason Robillard is now available. The greatly expanded seconded edition is sure to be the manual for barefoot running. The first edition, at just 68 pages, seemed a bit rushed, but the 188-page second edition is the complete package. Not only does Jason dive more deeply into the science of barefoot running, he added contributions from numerous experts in the field, including Barefoot Ted McDonald and Barefoot Rick Roeber.

Although Jason touches on the biomechanics and science of running, I think the real strength of his book lies in the practical training plans he provides. From the 5k Cheetah plan to the 26-mile Marathon Hyena plan, he’s got one for every runner. Varied-terrain and debris drills will keep your eye-foot coordination at peak performance while you work your way to barefoot running proficiency. Jason’s diary-style race report of the Hallucination 100 Mile Run seasons the book with a personal touch that will inspire you to keep running.

If you’re at all interested in barefoot running, you owe it to yourself to read The Barefoot Running Book. Jason’s book truly is A Practical Guide to the Art and Science of Barefoot & Minimalist Shoe Running.

Oh yeah, you should also check out Jason's website, Barefoot Running University. I like it, but then I'm a Barefoot Professor!

Moving Naturally... MovNat!

2010-10-20T10:53:00.000-04:00

I had never heard of Erwan Le Corre until I met him at the 1st Annual NYC Barefoot Run. However, I was fascinated by the man from the moment I met him and my fascination has only increased since I’ve cyber-stalked him in the past two weeks!

Erwan is the founder of MovNat, a revolutionary new way to exercise, move and live in your world. Erwan told me that for healthier bodies adults need to move like children move. After thinking about this, I am absolutely convinced that Erwan is on to something.

Have you ever watched children playing on a playground? They climb ladders, slide down slopes, crawl under and over obstacles, jump from place to place. They are constantly on the move and their motions are anything but repetitve. Contrast this to a typical adult trying to get some exercise; for example, a woman at the gym watching the news while she runs 5 miles on a treadmill. She’s burning calories, but her motions are extremely repetitive. She’s using some muscles over-and-over again while other muscles are hardly working at all. Even the muscles that are working are not working well, using the same motor units and the same muscle fascicles and producing the same amount of tension in the same direction. This is not the best way for our bodies to move. Even when we “change it up” by moving from the treadmill to a cycle machine, we’re primarily using the same muscles and our motions are still repetitive.

Check out this amazing video by Erwan. Yeah, I’m definitely going to incorporate some of this into my exercise “routine.” He's working a book right now... I can't wait for it!

BTW, children instinctively pull off their shoes every chance they get, too. We grown-ups can learn a lot from children!

Welcome to Oz

2010-10-04T22:35:00.001-04:00

My favorite theatrical production is WICKED – The untold story of the Witches of Oz. I've seen it three times! (Chicago, San Francisco and Richmond). As you know, in the land of Oz there’s an Emerald City. It’s the one place where Elphaba – the green wicked witch of the West – feels at home (at least for a while).

Now imagine that you live in the Emerald City. In this place everyone dyes their hair green. Parents dye the hair of their newborns as soon as it begins to grow. Children and adults are expected to regularly dye their hair to keep it presentable. You yourself have dyed your hair all your life. Maybe you’re a student at Emerald U., or a professor.

Suppose you discover that the green dye used to color your hair is mildly toxic to your scalp, and you just don’t like the color green for hair. You decide to let your hair grow out in its natural color. As your brown roots begin to show, people take notice. They stare at you. They laugh at you and call you names. Businesses refuse to serve you. Reporters and cameramen from far-off lands follow you around and local newspapers do stories on you. All because you want your own, natural hair color. How messed up is that?

Welcome to Oz.

The Beginning of a Barefoot Journey

2010-09-17T14:00:00.000-04:00

I've been going barefoot for years - hiking, running, walking... just living barefoot as much as possible. Along the way I've been able to talk to people and even convince a few to join me. But since the publication of my book my opportunities to "evangelize" for healthy, barefoot behavior has skyrocketed!

I love hearing stories from people who've been enlightened, encourage and emboldened to spend more time barefoot because of The Barefoot Book. One of my students has recently begun her own barefoot journey. Laura, welcome to the world of barefooting... may you enjoy every step of the way!

A Success Story

2010-09-10T17:42:00.001-04:00

Here's a story someone submitted to the SBL recently. Names & places have been changed to protect the innocent!

Hello.
My name is Steph, I'm 20-years-old, and I've been a member [of the Society for Barefoot Living] for quite some time but never really posted much and I slowly fell back into wearing shoes (sometimes it's just hard to stand up to the masses).

Today though, I want to share with you all a story of fears, a small step forward, and what I consider a major success. For many days I've sat in my car outside of my college before class, and I've worried myself to death over what people will think and say [if I go in barefoot]... submitting to fear I eventually slide on the flip flops and walk to class. I'm a socially fearful person- It's been difficult for me to break from what's considered "normal."

A few days ago I broke down and ordered a pair of barefoot sandals... Today I put them on, told myself people would think I had shoes on (and at a glance that's exactly what they do), left my sandals at home, and went for it. I was reading the barefoot book as I walked, distracting myself from hearing any comments. Eventually I ran into a friend from high school. He looked at my feet (knowing me for only wearing flip flops through High School), and said "cheater." We laughed, I showed him my book, and I felt a little better. As I waited outside of class another student looked, looked again, and said "... those aren't flip flops are they? What's on the bottom?" so I showed her my naked foot. She asked about it, I told her about being healthy and comfortable- Busted twice in less than 10 minutes, and if there were any rude remarks I never heard them.

I know many SBLers tell the newbies to just do it, but that's more difficult for some than others. I know barefoot sandals aren't the best solution and I hope to wean myself off of them eventually, but for now their good practice to keeping my cool knowing I have no shoes on, and the good comments are going a long way.
Who knows, maybe my story will even help someone else.

Thanks for reading,
Steph
***
And that, folks, is why I wrote the book. Way to go Steph!!! And oh yeah, I wear barefoot sandals, too. They are great!

On The Menu...

2010-09-04T00:19:00.000-04:00

I have received a very special accolade this weekend: A menu item has been named in my honor at a local restaurant!

The New London House is a landmark restaurant in the greater Lynchburg area. Shirley Hartman opened the restaurant nearly 40 years ago and since that time the steakhouse has won numerous awards. Their filet mignon rivals the best of the best in town and their ribs are second-to-none. The staff is friendly and the atmosphere is casual - yes, I dine there barefoot! The New London House has a bar, private dining rooms and a patio for those perfect summer nights.

So, if you've never been to The New London House, check them out! They are located at 4312 New London Rd in Forest, VA. If you like surf-n-turf, order the Barefoot Professor (pork BBQ ribs & steamed shrimp) and if the weather is warm sit out on the patio. And oh yeah... kick off your shoes!!

First Barefoot Running Injury?

2010-08-31T16:19:00.001-04:00

I may be suffering from my first bf running injury since I started running bf in 2007. I just got back from a short 3-mile run. Throughout most of the run - and even more now - my tibialis anterior muscle on the right leg is killing me (well, it hurts). The left leg is fine.

This has never happened to me before, but I've run less this summer than in the past 3-4 years (ironically because my book has kept me so busy). I'm training for a 10-mile race in September, so I can't take too much time off. :-( Oh, well... push through it? Erghh.

Barefoot Hiking is Awesome!

2010-08-31T13:10:00.000-04:00

If you have never tried barefoot hiking, do it! Hiking along a well-worn nature trial in your bare feet is one of the most delightful things I've ever experienced. For me it's a spiritual experience. On such hikes I often think of Jesus walking barefoot through the gardens in and around Jerusalem, or Adam and Eve exploring Eden. The oneness you feel with nature just makes it easier to feel more connected to God. Maybe that's one reason God told Moses to take off his shoes in His presence (Exodus 3:5)!

Sure, if your feet are tender and fragile from wearing shoes it will take time to adjust to the new sensations under foot, but not long. Newbies that join me on hikes move quickly past the fearful tip-toeing around to walking naturally within a mile. Once your feet are toughened up you can explore nature freely, enjoying the touch of the earth but not fearful of the next "ouch." You can even run through the trails with the ease of a deer.

Yeah, I'm going out for a hike... see you later!

An Issue of Safety? Really?

2010-08-25T08:34:00.000-04:00

warning: I was a *tad* angry when I wrote this!

I recently saw a news clip* of a British Columbian teen who was left stranded at a bus station late at night because the bus driver refused to let him on the bus barefoot. Thus, the teen, Carl A., is left alone at 11 p.m. watching the bus drive away. He has no cell phone and may find himself walking the 6 miles to his home. He borrows a cell phone (from strangers late at night?) to call for a ride.

So what was the problem with being barefoot? It was dangerous according to the BC Transit Authority. After all, the teen could have stepped on glass in the bus and cut himself, then hold the transit system liable.

Let's talk about safety... and liability.

Safety:
According the bus driver, it was safer to leave a lone teenager stranded at a bus stop late at night 6 miles from home than to just let him ride barefoot. The floor of the bus is apparently more hazardous than the streets the boy is left to walk upon going home. And it must be safer to walk barefoot in the middle of the night through town then to sit with all those thugs on the bus, right? In my opinion, high heels are so dangerous they should come with warning labels (I'm not kidding), but would the bus driver refuse to take a woman in stilettos? Flip flops are incredibly slippery when wet. Would he refuse those wearing flip flops on rainy days. The issue is not one of safety.

Liability:
No doubt the bus driver felt the transit authority could be sued if the boy cut his foot on that glass all over his bus. But is the bus system less liable by leaving him stranded? If the teen did manage to injure his foot on the bus, he would not win a lawsuit - after all... he was barefoot! But if this were my son and he was mugged or beaten - or worse - because he was forced to walk home, I would definitly hold the bus system culpable! The boy had even already paid the fare before he was ousted from the bus!

This was a gross lapse of judgement on the part of the bus driver. Carl, I'm sending you a free, signed copy of The Barefoot Book and I hope you can use it to educate the BC Transit Authority! Walk well young man.

*available on youtube here.

Hot Foot Syndrome

2010-08-20T07:26:00.000-04:00

In The Barefoot Book, I discuss a condition I call "hot foot syndrome." Even though I coined this term, I don't particularly like it. Before I explain why, let me first describe what it is...

Hot foot syndrome (HFS) is "a condition in which covered feet feel intolerably hot and cause the sufferer to feel uncomfortably warm throughout the body." (BFB, pg. 39).

Why do I not like the term?

Well, a 'syndrome' is a set of conditions that collectively indicate a disease or abnormal condition. Although a 'set of conditions' can be associated with HFS (e.g., hot feet, red/swollen feet, a discomfort from feeling too warm, and a feeling of dizziness), those conditions do not reflect a disease or abnormal condition. Indeed, they reflect the body reacting normally to a physical assault - the shoe. I suspect the same set of conditions could be elicited by wearing thick wool mittens for hours on a hot summer day.

The feet, like the hands and head, are made to radiate heat from the body. This is evident from the distribution of sweat glands on the body (the most concentrated number of glands being on the scalp, palms of hands and soles of feet). Thus, it's not surprising that a person could feel uncomfortably hot, have red/swollen feet and feel dizzy from enclosing their feet in shoes and socks all day. Indeed, it's in fact surpising that so few people suffer from HFS - a testimony to the incredible adaptability of the human body.

As for what to call this shoe-aggravated condition (other than HFS), I still don't know. Any suggestions?

The Medical Community Is Coming Around...

2010-08-19T16:32:00.000-04:00

I've been hearing reports - many of them - from friends and students about doctors recommending barefoot activity. Not just tolerating it, but actually recommending it! Obviously, I think this is fantastic. Some of these reports come from local friends and the doctors might be familiar with me as the local barefoot professor who wrote "the book." BUT, several other reports have come my way from students in various states where - I'm quite sure - the doctor doesn't know me from Adam and has never heard my name.

This is very exciting to me because it clearly indicates that doctors and podiatrists are no longer resisting the barefoot movement but are embracing it. This is how it should be, given the plethora of scientific evidence in favor of natural (i.e., barefoot) walking and running. Still, the idea of going barefoot was resisted by the medical community for many years (as Dr. William Rossi could attest if he were still with us). As medical specialists continue to promote barefoot activity, social acceptance will surely increase. And I am all in favor of that!

Author's Response to Elise Cohen

2010-08-11T20:47:00.000-04:00

As an author, I'm flattered when someone not only reads my book but takes the time to write a review of it. As a professor, I receive student evaluations every semester and I've learned to especially appreciate thoughtful constructive criticism because it has greatly improved my teaching over the years. I'm not so naive as to think that every student will like my teaching style, nor do I think every reader will like The Barefoot Book or find it useful to them. However, when a review of my book contains factual errors I feel I must respond.

Amazon reviewer Elise Cohen accuses me of taking citations out of context, but she begins her review by taking my words out of context by quoting the sentence: "Asking someone to wear a sensible shoe is like asking a person to smoke a sensible cigarette." (page 5) and presenting this as a genuine argument on my part rather than the attention-grabber it is clearly meant to be. She fails to mention the follow-up sentence, “Okay, shoes are not as devasting as cigarettes, but for most of us daily shoe wearing will cause chronic foot problems.”

Cohen then asks, “Did I mention the scientific backing? Oh, I didn't; that would be because there isn't any, except a few citations taken out of context (related to historic foot-binding or extreme high heel damage, for the most part).” In chapter 4 alone, I cite

Nature
Prosthetics & Orthotics International
Journal of Biomechanics
Journal of Sports Science
Clinical Biomechanics
Journal of Anatomy
Boston Medical and Surgical Journal
British Medical Journal
The Lancet
Arthritis & Rheumatism
Journal of the American Medical Association
and more.

Throughout the book there are roughly 100 references to primary and secondary sources. Ironically, not one of them refers to “historic foot-binding” which is discussed briefly in chapter 1 without a citation.

Cohen goes on to criticize the chart on page 127 which graphically compares the number of shoe-related lawsuits to barefoot-related lawsuits. She complains that “there are no numbers anywhere on the graph at all.” This is true, but as Cohen concedes all of the lawsuits depicted in the graph are listed in the Appendix; one therefore only needs to count them to obtain numbers. Cohen asserts that the Appendix fails to “acknowledge the fact that the shoe-related injury lawsuits related to suing the shoe manufacturers for the most part” but again her assertion is not true; the first five shoe-related lawsuits, for example, are against Cigna Corporation, Home Depot, Grand Wailea Company, Wal-Mart Stores, and Winn-Dixie. Indeed, there’s not a single lawsuit in the list against a shoe manufacturer.

Finally, I have to wonder if Elise Cohen’s review is not biased by negative sentiments for my employer, Liberty University. She opens her review with “When I saw that the author is a professor at Liberty University, my eyebrows raised.” She said that, despite my affiliations, she would give the book a fair shot. Did she?

Barefoot at Dollywood

2010-08-10T19:32:00.000-04:00

I spent a day at Dollywood last week. The park is truly wonderful with lots of fun rides for kids and adults, and entertaining shows every hour. There's a genuine steam-engine train that takes you on a tour through the park and a new zip line (extra $36) that lets you soar above it all. (I didn't ride the zip line, BTW). Overall, it's a place I would recommend and I’ll probably be going back myself.

The day I was there I was barefoot (surprise). In fact, I didn't even take shoes with me. Admittedly, I "snuck" in by staying deep within the crowd, but after gaining entry I wandered rather carefree throughout the park. For the most part I was not hassled for my free feet (which were plainly visible since I was wearing shorts), and I passed many, many park employees. I was denied entry onto one ride - a water ride at that! And I was informed I needed "to wear shoes throughout the park" by a park employee while I was perusing the museum exhibits. That dictum was clearly not true since there are several rides in the park on which shoes are *not allowed* and a play fountain where kids and parents tromped barefoot in the water. Indeed I wish I had read the parks rules *before* I went because according Dollywood’s website the only footwear rules are these:

“Shoes, sandals or footwear with buckles are not permitted on the attractions. No footwear may be worn on the Mountain Scream, Wild River Falls, SwiftWater Run, The Butterfly or Bear Mountain Fire Tower. Water shoes or similar footwear is acceptable on all other attractions.”

BTW, Dollywood made a big deal about the “no shoes” rule at those rides: Several signs were posted and water was sprayed on the pavement at the rides to keep it from getting too hot (i.e., too hot for tender feet; my feet withstood the hot pavement throughout the park just fine).

So it seems that no shoes are required “throughout the park” and going barefoot is perfectly acceptable. Yeah, I think I will go back, and next time I won’t sneak in!

(The statue above is of Dolly Parton).

The Barefoot Book: Barefoot Running Injuries

2010-08-09T11:40:00.001-04:00

The Barefoot Book: Barefoot Running Injuries: "Barefoot running is taking the nation by storm. Seriously, it's becoming something of a phenomenon. I started running barefoot in 2007. By 2..."

The Barefoot Book: 2010 Barefoot Book Tour Complete

2010-08-09T11:40:00.000-04:00

The Barefoot Book: 2010 Barefoot Book Tour Complete: "The book tour is finished! I traveled to 15 cities, passing through 20 states in 21 days and covered 5412 miles. I met a lot of wonderful p..."

The Barefoot Book: Crime & Punishment... the barefoot way.

2010-08-09T11:28:00.000-04:00

The Barefoot Book: Crime & Punishment... the barefoot way.: "Imagine a young couple driving out on a date. The young man, more fixated on his girl than his driving, finds himself going 60 miles per hou..."

The Barefoot Book: What's up with Missouri?

2010-08-09T11:17:00.000-04:00

The Barefoot Book: What's up with Missouri?: "Missouri seems to be one hostile state to barefooting. You are probably aware that a family was ejected from a Burger King last year becaus..."

The Barefoot Book: Links to my recent TV appearances

2010-08-09T11:14:00.000-04:00

The Barefoot Book: Links to my recent TV appearances: "Here are the links to my recent TV interviews: http://www.todaysthv.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=129097539001#/News/Being+shoeless+is+nothi..."

The Barefoot Book: Amazing Restaurant Experience

2010-08-09T11:13:00.000-04:00

The Barefoot Book: Amazing Restaurant Experience: "I just had the most amazing restaurant experience. I stopped at Olympia Steaks & Seafood in Blytheville, Arkansas for dinner. I was hesitant..."

The Barefoot Book: So yesterday instead of an interview with Wess (th...

2010-08-09T11:12:00.000-04:00

The Barefoot Book: So yesterday instead of an interview with Wess (th...: "So yesterday instead of an interview with Wess (the sports anchor) I did an interview with Stefanie Bryant at KTHV in Little Rock. She was ..."

The Barefoot Book: TV interview on KTHV in Little Rock

2010-08-09T11:11:00.000-04:00

The Barefoot Book: TV interview on KTHV in Little Rock: "On Thursday evening I will be interviewed by Wess Moore on KTHV TV in Little Rock, AR. I will be giving a presentation of The Barefoot Book ..."

Welcome

2010-08-09T11:01:00.000-04:00

Welcome to The Barefoot Professor blog spot! Here is where I (with you) will discuss issues related to footwear, foot health and going barefoot. It is becoming clear to a growing number of people that shoes are unhealthy and going barefoot is a better option, but there are social hurdles to overcome before 'barefooting' will be commonplace. For several generations we have been told that shoes are a modern necessity - both physically and socially. In most circumstances they are not a physical necessity and our society's 'shoe rule' is one that can be changed through education and bold leadership. Let's discuss it!

PS. If you were one of the few people who followed me on The Barefoot Book blog spot, I will now be posting here instead of there. Thanks for following.