He (Stephen Gough) did manage to complete the walk, however when he attempted the walk a second time with a female partner he was arrested shortly after arriving in Scotland and remains in prison to this day.
His website is here.
(He wore boots)
going barefoot
- Thread starter dogwood
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
He (Stephen Gough) did manage to complete the walk, however when he attempted the walk a second time with a female partner he was arrested shortly after arriving in Scotland and remains in prison to this day.
His website is here.
(He wore boots)
The evidence that boots actually confer an advantage is sketchy. Some research supports it, some doesn't. It's a topic of lots of discussion on ultra-light backpacking boards.
The best pro-boot argument people make is that they prevent ankle injuries. The jury is out on that, in fact. Again, some research supports it, some doesn't because.
And more important there's this: if a boot does prevent the shock to the ankle, it does so by pushing the impact upstream to the knees and spine. Thus you risk tearing an ACL or worse. You can always hobble out with an ankle injury. If you tear and ACL, you're in big trouble indeed.
In other words, bodies entire shock absorbing system -- foot, ankle, knees, spine -- gets short circuited by boots and the knees and the spine have to take it all.
Mind you, I'm not saying that boots are worthless. But their worth isn't as certain as people think.
However, there is no dispute about this: the best way to prevent all backcountry injuries is by reducing your carried weight.
Earlier someone posted a question about carrying a 50kg pack -- and that's an invitation to all kinds of injuries, boots or not.
Other than when hunting and carrying out a kill, I don't carry those kinds of weights -- my typical pack for a week out is about 11 kg, (slightly heavier in the dead of winter).
I was really making the point that as soon as you start carrying any weight, pressure on bare feet from small pebbles and sharp rocks becomes a problem. I typically carry 20 Kg or so and find fording rivers in bare feet impossibly painful!
Jim
Jim, no argument there! I've had the same experience.
But I think we should remember that nobody is suggesting that you go barefoot trekking immediately after a life in shoes. Everyone in the barefooting community -- and those members here who do it -- say you've got to work up to it.
I do know this: when I was growing up (in the Southern US and Arizona) I went barefoot a lot into my teenage years and even in Arizona, which is filled with sharp things
my feet were tough enough to handle most jabs without complaint. The heat in the desert floor could get bad, though. Back then, I forded barefoot with a pack on and had no problems. Now my feet are too tender and the supporting muscle not strong enough because I've been in high tech shoes too long. So I'm toughing them up. I must say, that after three longish walks since I started my toughening practice, I can already perceive a difference.
Yes, care and respect your feet should always be a primary concern and I personally am not suggesting that folks should head off on big hikes barefoot. However, I do like to hike in the hills barefooted sometimes and feel that whilst I may potentially hurt my foot I could also twist an ankle whilst in boots? Or, fall off my bike, off a horse or out of my canoe and disable myself 'in the middle of nowhere' but that doesn't stop me taking these risks
or partaking in activities I love and benefit from, which have an element of risk...almost anything does!?Dogwood I have never tried carrying much weight when barefoot (just a day sack), but might give it go next time I am carrying full kit!
Based on your running experience, I'll bet you're closer to being ready for it than I am. But I'm trying to catch up with you!
FWIW, I came across this interesting article from the NY Magazine about how shoes are hurting us. It cites some interesting research that points to increased ankle injuries from shoes. http://nymag.com/health/features/46213/. The NY Mag article is not as thoroughly sourced as the first one I put up, but it's a good read.
He (Stephen Gough) did manage to complete the walk, however when he attempted the walk a second time with a female partner he was arrested shortly after arriving in Scotland and remains in prison to this day.
His website is here.
(He wore boots)
Crikey, so he has been in prison since 2006, quite a price to pay, makes you wonder how long they will actually keep him imprisoned, if he maintains his protest/nakedness will they just keep doing a gate-arrest or something, it could go on forever if both sides maintain their position and he may spend the rest of his life locked up, incredible situation.
On footwear itself, i like to wear approach type shoes (non-goretex) most of the time purely for the lightness and flexibilty they allow but would'nt go as far as barefoot, this results in wet soaked feet more often than not, even when not raining dew can soak feet in seconds, light footwear seems all the rage now with the lightweight fraternity so how do other trainer/approach shoe wearers contend with wet feet, also purely out of interest why do trainers soften feet and boots harden them.
i think its something to do with the fact its a rougher and harder surface to walk on in some leather walking boots, especially on the insides of a standard british issue assault boot.
the act of walking every day on hard rubber soles creates callouses on the feet which as you know toughens them up.
the bad thing about callouses on the feet is that you have to wear boots regularly otherwise your feet become weak and will cause blisters. an example of this is the legend of a US ranger trying for selection for delta force. he hadnt done much running in his boots in the 6 months leading up to selection and he literally tore the callouses straight off the bottom of his feet
in fact on the old DMS combat high's issued after the falklands conflict you was actually walking on compressed cardboard that could quite happily tear up the feet of someone that was used to wearing trainers with a nice soft inner sole.
the royal marines countered this problem by using scholl cushion soles.
the other problem encountered with this boot was the fact it gave a lot of recruits tendonitis in their ankles because of the decreased movement in the ankles when the boots were fully laced up. the way around this was to lace up the first 3 eyelets and miss the fourth thus creating a flex point right where the ankle was.
Ouch, but steel toe caps are really bad for your feet.
I thought the point was to protect your ankle. The way reason I wear high legs, was from jumping on, and off lorries. Went over a couple of times, and changed my boots to give more protection.
I also think you pay more attention to the world around you. Which is one of the pro-lightweight arguements. That carrying all of that weight means you look down, and struggle on, not noticing the scenery around you.
I did some hiking in trainers, and you have to change the way you walk. A puddle would not bother my high legs, but in trainers I had to move around it.
If not wearing boots was highly likely to cause disability through toe stubbing then we would never have lived long enough in our evolutionary history for mankind to have learned to invent boots in the first place! All them millenia walking from Africa to every corner of the globe risking disablement from toe stubbings? I think not!
That's certainly the point that boot makers would have you believe: "Your ankles will crumble without (insert brand name here!) boots."
Part of what I've been encountering as I read more on this and proceeded with my active shoeless experiments is that we've been sold something of a bill of goods on this point.
Even a study commissioned by Nike found that injury rates were higher amongst Nike's high end, super designed shoes than simple crepe soled non-padded trainers. There's a marketing pitch: "buy our expensive top of the line shoes, they're more likely to hurt you!"
Once you start looking into it, there is just a ton of research that supports the notion that once properly prepared, the naked (or nearly naked) foot is much better at protecting people whether burdened or unburdened.
And we all know from our barefoot childhoods that it's not like your eyes are glued to the ground worring about everything. Sure you pay more attention -- you should, and that's part of the scenery too -- but barefoot runnings get to look around plenty. And you get to *feel* the world around you. That's good.
I'm sure the barefooters here with a lot more experience than me can attest to that. Lisa, do you miss the scenery on your runs?
jimford" said:
Best not tell that to the porters we had in Zimbabwe then. To get to the launch site for our trip down the Zambezi these guys carried the fibreglass 18' canoes about a mile and a half over some fairly unpleasant terrain. No shoes for them. No idea how much these canoes weighed, but I'd guess they were closer to 200lb than 100lb. Though many of us were happy to carry our personal kit, one rucksack, our guide asked that we allowed the porters to carry them to earn a little more. These guys were very good and we were happy to oblige. I have a photo of one of them carrying a metal table on his head with three of our rucksacks atop that.
Clearly these folks hardly ever, if ever, wore shoes, but it obviously can be done. I think the biggest problem we have is that we in the west are pretty feeble. In fact you only need to go back a generation or two and folks worked the land and used 16 stone sacks to shift produce. These days, try reading the Song of the Paddle forum to read about people struggling to lift a 70lb canoe onto cars roof bars. Pitiful really.
So yeah another barefoot walker here, and slugs between the toes are definitely the worst!
Al
There is an exercise thing about Marathon runners, that Blue Collar workers find it easier to train. They basically have to do less, and have better results. What they worked out was because they are exercising all day at work, they have better heart rates.
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.
So why can a native pick up large weights and move them, and we struggle, because he did it yesterday, the day before, and for most of his life. Why can he do it barefoot, because he has never worn shoes for any length of time, so all of those muscles, and toughing we need, he has had a lifetime head start on.
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.
So why can a native pick up large weights and move them, and we struggle, because he did it yesterday, the day before, and for most of his life. Why can he do it barefoot, because he has never worn shoes for any length of time, so all of those muscles, and toughing we need, he has had a lifetime head start on.
Well Minotaur, I'm glad you that you agree that with practice/training walking barefoot with a pack is possible.
Minotaur, I think you make some great points.
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'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.
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.
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'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.
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.
H
He' s left the building
Guest
Users of the high end shoes may be those who are more active and thus more likely to be injured as a result of their increased activity.
I'd say that was to prevent getting slithers of worked flint in your feet and to keep warm.
Yes, that is my experience. There are times when you need to pay more attention to the ground and times when you can look around more. However, its difficult to describe how much more connected one feels, so even if you must focus at your feet for a while, you are simultaneously far more aware of the bigger picture...you simply need to tune in more. In addition, I love the sensation of being able to see with your feet and I find myself enjoying the various sensations created by the rich patchwork of flora and stone under my feet. I also enjoy the challenge of knowing what plant or lichen I am running over without needing to look...just a bit of fun
. I love how playful barefoot running feels to me. I ran in the mountains yesterday evening and enjoyed just taking off at a sprint up some of the steep bits and realising just how much more nimble and light footed we really are without shoes.
Please bear in mind that i am talking about this as a sport and not as a wilderness technique! Although i sometimes hike barefoot during longer more remote trips, my experience here is that of a runner wishing to find better ways to stregnthen my ability and running technique for greater endurance, fitness and agility.
Similar threads
