going barefoot

[sandbender]

Also one of the big movements in fitness is for want of a better word the '300' systems. Not really fair to call them that, but easier for everyone if I do. It feeds into what we are discussing really well, actually. What they have found is, if you want to be real world strong, or fit, do real world things. Sounds like a Doh! moment, but what actually happened was a US Judo coach went to find out why the Russians keep owning them, and discovered kettlebells. Which are basically dumbbells, but the weight can move and is not centred over the hand. The whole point of this and why it ties in here is that they found that all of the high tech equipment trains the big muscles, ignoring the small ones. The small ones are important for stability.

This clip shows part of the regime the actors from 300 went through.

 

[xylaria]

True, but then that begs the question, why did we invent footwear?

Barefoot you have to think about where you walk, and you are sometimes prevented from taking a path because it is uncomfortable or risks injury. Covering the feet also helped man expand north over the ice. You can walk barefoot through a brambly pine forest or over shale but you would have to be quite slow and careful about it, shoes can mean you pass without thought for what you walk on. Just as a supermarket removes the need to think about getting food. On the other side of the arguement, do you think you would tread on a snake hard if your barefoot was the first thing to touch it? or do you think you would be aware enough to pull away fast?

 

[Minotaur]

True, but then that begs the question, why did we invent footwear?

Fashion, and money. Traveling might have come into it early on, but you do have to wonder how much walking they did in shoes when they had no left or right shoes. Also apart from the Romans, it was only recently we got roads as well.

A similar comparison would be cross country/trail runners and marathon runners vs. track and/or treadmill runners -- while both are work and both excellent, the marathoners and cross country/trail runners are building a much more robust base

I think like a lot of things, the running world focused on one thing, speed, especially over short distances. This is now having to change because they need to solve the stress problem over longer, and longer distances, mainly to get faster, but also because more and more people now run.

I've seen some kettleball videos, but I've never known anyone who does it. I can say -- as a lifelong weight lifter -- that working with dumbbells develops much more subtle and complete muscles than machines or barbells. I imagine that's a bit like kettlebells.

I think there are two lifting worlds, function, and show. Kettlebells are in the function camp, and I have never seen a function style gym in the UK. Do wonder were the strong men train? As I said they were brought to the US by a Judo coach, and that sort of '300' thing seems to be gaining ground with sports people, and just generally with people who want usable muscle. Bruce Lee was seen as a bad apple by his original arts, because of weight lifting, and the effect it had on his body.

But you're right, nothing in the gym ever made me as strong as I was when working in quarries or construction during summers at college.

The strongest people I've ever known are real, working cowboys -- those guys are amazingly powerful.

Strongest group in the world are jockeys. Body to strength ratio, and all round fitness. Climbers up there as well, and weirdly formula one drivers.

 

[dogwood]

I think there are two lifting worlds, function, and show. Kettlebells are in the function camp, and I have never seen a function style gym in the UK.

I don't disagree with your general thesis, just the proportion of the activity.

In all the gyms where I work out there are plenty of people pursuing function (lower weights, higher reps, etc.). Of course there are some people there for show too, but I think that gyms get a bad rap sometimes because of the illusion that it's all about show.

In my decades of experience in the gym, the majority of people there are for function and general fitness, not show. Maybe its different in the UK, I don't know.

 

[Minotaur]

I don't disagree with your general thesis, just the proportion of the activity.

In all the gyms where I work out there are plenty of people pursuing function (lower weights, higher reps, etc.). Of course there are some people there for show too, but I think that gyms get a bad rap sometimes because of the illusion that it's all about show.

I think you have more choice. In my favorite gym, the free weight section has loads of stuff in it, but no room, and that space you have to fight over with the strechers.

In my decades of experience in the gym, the majority of people there are for function and general fitness, not show. Maybe its different in the UK, I don't know.

Not so sure it is different, just because of the lack of choice, in most gyms you are forced into show, whether you want it or not. I live in the second city, and to my knowledge no yoga studio, no public access free weight gym, three martial arts studios, but two of them are set up more for boxing/kick boxing, so no real use for Judo etc.

I think a lot of it is if you want to follow a new trend, or do something not main stream, you need to do it on your own.

 

[African]

The same in South Africa, kids only wear shoes to school and when forced to by their parents. Kids have to play rugby in their bare feet until age 15 or there abouts. Once the muscles in the foot and ancle have developed it is easy to carry a load with no discomfort. Also when the sole of the foot has toughened it is amazing how much panishment they will shrug off.

One of the big plusses of walking bare foot is you are more mindful of where you are putting your feet and you walk much more lightly on the ground. This has huge benefits to your joints, you tend to whack your heal into the ground when you have shoes on with all the fancy shock absorbing guff in the soles.

If you want acceptable shoes with the benefit of barefoot have a look at Tera Plana Vivo barefoot shoes. I have been wearing a pair for about 6 months now and they are great, almost as good as walking barefoot!! http://www.terraplana.com/

Andre'

 

[Ruvio]

If i can help it, i never ever ever ever wear shoes
whilst you ocassionally get glass in your foot....its worth it the rest of the time

 

[Toddy]

I'm considered decidely odd because I never wear shoes in the house, and once in a blue moon in the garden, and shock horror, I have been know to walk out on the path in my bare feet too
My feet and ankles were killing me at the Moot, but my feet are damaged with arthritis and I think they're ugly so I cover them up
Beginning to wish I'd just taken the shoes and boots off anyway. It took three days walking barefooted at home for them to be happy again.
I agree that much of the area we would chose to walk is off limits because of littering, broken glass and dog debris.
The soft soled courrans are comfortable on everything but sand (gets everywhere) and gravel, though wet grass on a slope can be tricky.

Shoes, like other clothing, allowed us to cross and / or colonise areas that would otherwise have been off limits for humans. I'm reliably informed that all the Iron Age lacked was wellie boots

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Minotaur]

One of the big plusses of walking bare foot is you are more mindful of where you are putting your feet and you walk much more lightly on the ground. This has huge benefits to your joints, you tend to whack your heal into the ground when you have shoes on with all the fancy shock absorbing guff in the soles.

Think there is something in Scouting for boys about walking that way, being the right way. I think shoes teach you to stamp, were as barefoot, you tend to feel with the ball of your foot first. More of a rolling action.

 

[ickyan]

Apparently walking barefoot is good for you because it allows you body to earth electricity and magnetism (The naturally goes round your body)
Thats why it feels nice when you are bare foot

 

[caliban]

What an interesting post. On shoes, I don't think anyone has mentioned (although I skipped a few posts) coldness. Probably Europeans adapted to shoes by wearing footwear for warmth in cold European winters.

I'd give a word of warning about kettle bells, etc. I'd be very wary about any system that promises to be the "grail" of training. The three sets 8-10 reps system was sold as the "miracle" system based on the mystique of science and modernity. The kettle bell system is being sold as the "miracle" system based on the mystique of tradition and secrecy. Oriental martial arts were sold to Westerners in exactly the same way.

The long and the short of it is that some people are strong and some people are less strong. Naturally strong people will lurch from one system to another reaping disproportionate benefits and proclaiming their revolutionary advantages.

I screwed up my ligaments using Pavel Tsatsoulin's high weight low rep system and also damaged my knees trying to do extreme stretching (better now though). Kettle bells look like great training aids to me but they also look like they'd hyper extend your wrists in some movements. If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is, and that applies to exercise systems as much as to anything else.


Going back to shoes, when I was a student I worked as a waiter. This involved long hours on your feet. I found after much foot weariness that the best shoes were traditional lace up shoes with a low heel, thin, stiff leather soles and no interior upholstery. The African guys in the kitchens wore flip flop style sandals.

 

[dogwood]

What an interesting post. On shoes, I don't think anyone has mentioned (although I skipped a few posts) coldness. Probably Europeans adapted to shoes by wearing footwear for warmth in cold European winters.

Yes, based on my reading on the subject, coldness is indeed the main reason people wore shoes in Europe. (As some folks in this thread have noted, some can walk comfortably in the snow barefoot.)

Interestingly, though, just because you wear shoes in the snow, it doesn't mean you immediately convert to constant shoe use. As soon as the weather warmed up in the spring, people went back to being barefoot, according to historical accounts. They wore shoes kind of like the way we wear mittens or gloves -- only when you have to.

 

[caliban]

Yeah! You've got a point there Dogwood. Thinking about medieval shoes, my assumption is that they were not much more than mocassins, with thin leather soles. My deduction is this, shoe wearing was as much for keeping your feet clean and, in winter, warm. these thin soled shoes were probably perfectly healthy for your feet. The real culprits are probably fashion and hard paving. I think that by the eighteenth century being barefoot was a sign of poverty.

 

[dogwood]

Yeah! You've got a point there Dogwood. Thinking about medieval shoes, my assumption is that they were not much more than mocassins, with thin leather soles. My deduction is this, shoe wearing was as much for keeping your feet clean and, in winter, warm. these thin soled shoes were probably perfectly healthy for your feet.

Good deductions!

Based on all my reading -- and now personal experience a couple of weeks in on my barefoot experiments -- your deductions are exactly on the mark. The thing that weakens the feet is the padding, the arch supports, insoles, tight bindings of the toes and ankles, etc. of modern shoes. If you can't go barefoot, wear shoes with as little structure as possible.

The real culprits are probably fashion and hard paving. I think that by the eighteenth century being barefoot was a sign of poverty.

From what I can determine from studying this, this isn't exactly the case. In Europe and the UK and the US, people in rural areas were often barefoot well into the late 19th century, although they would wear shoes for church, in the winter, etc.

In the cities, largely because of the unclean roadways, people routinely wore shoes unless they were destitute beginning in the late 17th century.

In the colonial Americas, almost everyone went barefoot most of the time (especially in the South), including the likes of Thomas Jefferson when he was at home. It was just part of the scene.

Here's an 18th century quote that might tickle you:

"It would be a great novelty for a Londoner to see one of these congregations -- the men with only a thin shirt and a pair of breeches or trousers on -- barelegged and barefooted -- their women bareheaded, barelegged and barefoot with only a thin shift..." Charles Woodmason, touring the Carolina backcountry, 1766.

I guess we Yanks were always on the casual side

Of course, large numbers of colonists on the frontier often dressed like Indians too, but that's another story...

 

[silvergirl]

Yes, based on my reading on the subject, coldness is indeed the main reason people wore shoes in Europe. (As some folks in this thread have noted, some can walk comfortably in the snow barefoot.)

When I was 12yrs old, I went to fetch my brother who was sledging (in the snow ) a mile away. I passed my neighbour on the way who was decked out in big snow boots and down jacket. I was barefoot and wearing shorts and t-shirt.
But then people thought I was bit odd even then

I didn't wear shoes regularly until I was 16, I used to carry my shoes to school in my bag and put the on when I arrived in the playground.
I guess I gave in to social pressure that wearing shoes was just the done thing.

I think this thread has inspired me to walk barefoot more often again

Thanks!

 

[Deleted dude 7861]

Glad it's not just me who hates wearing shoes all the time, I'm quite happy to walk down the shops barefoot but you do get some looks!

 

[Silverclaws]

Since I started learning to dance, the dance I do being predominantly a bare foot dance, I when at home now take great delight in walking around barefoot. But sometimes I forget when I have to take a rubbish bag out and have to cross the carpark, a few seconds it takes to realise, oh bugger, shoes would have bean a good idea, as I gingerley tread between the bits of glass and those sharp micro flint shards, a bit like walking in a swamp, looking for the dry bits.

 

[big_swede]

I read this thread yesterday, and I have read several articles in running magazines about barefoot running before. As a guy who runs a couple of times every week I have gotten quite aware of my running step and have struggled and put a lot of effort in developing an efficient technique. Reading this thread inspired me to try barefoot running on my middle distance run today. Of course I didn't do the whole 12 kms barefoot, but chose an intermittent part.
Most of the trails I run on for these distances are covered with bark chips, which provide padding for the broad majority of joggers. This surface, along with todays super padded running shoe soles are said to releive the stresses that jogging/running induces on tendons, bones and muscles (I have never accepted this, rather, I have always thought that we have gone soft today). I too most often use modern 'anatomically' padded and supportive shoes. The exception is when I have participated in different terrain running events and orienteering events, I've used non-padded studded orienteering shoes for those times. Don't ask me why I don't train in those..
Anyway, after a few kilometers of running as a warm up, I un-laced my shoes and started running without the shoes. First thoughts were that the surface didn't provide any padding at all, where the bark chips used to be, there were now only gravel and pebbles. So for my next try I will try some real forest trails, instead of running trails. The next thought were that I had to focus on my running step, there were virtually no possibility to just bounce along on the springy soles, I had to really think about pushing with the ball of my feet for the last part of the step, every step. This was really an eye opener. During descents I really had to focus again, on how I put my feet down, again, no bouncing on the soft soles. I tried some sprints, again, focusing on putting the power on the ball of the feet, but also the very known fact that the best way to increase speed is by increasing the pace and smaller steps rather than taking giant strides (talking about speed over longer distances, not real sprints, where powerful longer steps are necessary). After 2 kilometers or so, I grew weary of the constant pain from the gravel, and the groun got worse and worse so I donned my running shoes and did the last kilometers as usual, except for one thing. My feet felt all warm and fuzzy, like I had gotten some kind of massage! Strange, but it was a nice feeling. After the run I did my usual chins, push-ups etc. and stretched. I now feel, as expected, a bit tired in the muscles within the feet. Nothing strange about that really. I will definitely try to do more of this, I think this can be a good way of developing even better running efficiency and get a step that reduces the risk of injuries, strains and fatigue in the legs. This is really good in the long run (hehe) I think.
For hiking I will probably not go barefoot for several reasons, I think it will reduce my mean distance per day, and I will have to be constant aware of where I put my feet, which will take focus from my surroundings, and I think the risk for injuries greatly overweighs the pros. But I will have to see after a few more tries of running.

My 2 kilometers worth....

 

[harryhaller]

This is a fascinating thread. big_swede's post was very interesting. My biology teacher at school was Bruce Tulloh, so even at school I was used to the idea of running in barefeet. At that time there was also the pop star Sandie Shaw, so it was not difficult for me to come to the decision to try out bare feet.

I spent one summer long with bare feet in central London which is not a friendly place for bare feet - all concrete, rubbish, broken glass etc. I was selling mags on the street in Carnaby Street so I didn't have to work in an office or anything like that. It was a long time ago but all that I remember about being barefoot is that it was positive.

The sole of the foot thickens and becomes like leather. I once walked on a piece of glass and it stuck to the sole but didn't get through to the flesh.

The only difficulty which I remember was when I stopped and had to get used to shoes again - wearing shoes didn't feel pleasant and of course it took about a week or more for the harden sole to come off in bits and pieces - I think it itched a lot. But I still remember how pleasantly surprised I was that we really don't need shoes - and the beautiful feeling of being grounded and free which you get when you are barefoot.

Michael

 

[hog]

Saw this Guy the other day walking his way round the country, saw him just outside the town Nelspruit North East of the country.
http://www.kaalvoetsolo.co.za/