excellentABC evening news report on barefoot running

I happened to catch a great very pro barefoot running report on Sundays ABC evening news. They showed a guy (barefoot Ken Bob) running the New York city marathon barefoot and went on to say that more and more that running barefoot is better for you feet than high dollar shoes.

They interviewed a doctor who did a study (New Hampshire) saying shoes are causing foot problems and that we were meant to go barefoot. Shoes are causing the muscle in the arch to become weak and going barefoot strengthens it.

** groans **
they did say Nike is making a "barefoot" shoe that doesn't have a rigid sole and fakes the effect of going barefoot.

 

I saw that report about ten minutes ago, I can imagine the emails I will be getting since I'm a member of the SBL.

It was nice to actually hear from a medical professional that said that we were all meant to go barefoot. Isn't that interesting that a medical study was done about someting most of us here knew all along?

 

the only down side I forgot to mention, was the snide comment the host said "they didn't say anything about glass. snort laugh laugh", what a shodie.

I thought it was also cool the reporter ran on a treadmill barefoot with sensors to measure the shock he was getting when running like the shod... heal to toe and when he was told how to run normal on the pads of his feet, no discomfort and the shock levels went way down.

as you pointed out, they shoulda asked us, we already knew this.

 

It's still good these studies are done, because while most of us *here*, in the Bare It forum, might already have known, I'll bet the majority of the world (or at least Western Europe/North America) would've believed otherwise. Not a waste of money at all!

 

His name is Ken Saxton, and he has a website at http://www.runningbarefoot.org/

This person who did the study was Irene Davis, who is a professor at the University of Delaware.

This was a really great segment on the news about barefooting.

 

Yeah, the drones won't believe anything unless the Hive Mind (aka TV) tells them it's true.

 

running on your toes, barefoot or not, is the best way to run as the story mentioned all though shoes almost make you run heal to toe.

 

I saw that and I thought it was awsome and preceded to tell everyone at school about it . I also hated the comment the announcer dude made: "But what if there's glass in the road?" Well don't step on it, duh.

 

Glass is not that bad, just don't step on the really big jagged pieces and don't drag your feet. I don't walk around it if I see it, but I do step even lighter than usual, if I were hurrying and pushing off hard I will slow down a bit so I don't make that pushing move as much.. but it's gotta be *real* bad before I'll even go one step out of the way.

 

To be honest, I'm more concerned with stepping on slugs than I am of stepping on glass... *Yick*

 

I hate stepping on someone's discarded chewing gum.

 

Why would you think that? The shoe industry would love to have you as their spokeperson.

Just because something didn't exist in the dawn of mankind doesn't mean we were not meant to deal with it. Ken Saxton, the marathon runner that the ABC piece was about, runs on pavement all the time. I ran 3 miles a day on hard pavement for years and today my feet are strong and healthy. I only stopped because an unrelated accident badly injured my knee. If there's any universal truth as to what we weren't meant for, for sure we weren't meant to wear shoes. Actually we weren't meant to wear clothes either, but there's a big difference. Clothes, generally speaking, do not damage or weaken the part of the body they're covering. Shoes on the other hand do damage and weaken the part of the body they're covering. Feet, unlike other parts of the body, need to interact with the environment, that is, the ground or other surface that we're walking or running on, in order to function properly and stay healthy and strong. As long as the surface does not have obvious hazards, such as being hot enough to burn skin, cold enough to cause frostbite, or sharp nails sticking up, it does no harm to bare feet.

 

We were meant to walk & run on some pretty hash surfaces; think mountains? Plenty of those around in nature, they've got a pretty hard surface and are even littered with loose rock. Just because there was no pavement doesn't mean there was nothing like it.

And before anyone says 'there was no glass' -well, there was flint! You know, the stuff the stone age people made tools out of? It's just as sharp as glass when knapped, and from the thousands and thousands of shards commonly found at Stone Age sites, we know they didn't exactly pick up after themselves after they'd knapped some flint... camp sites are just littered with shards & discarded tools, and more than likely the people went barefoot lots.

Also, one more thing about running on asphalt. There's been a previous study of riksha pullers in India, who run barefoot on pavement *all the time*, and they had very, very few foot problems.

 

Several people who I know, (3) told me they saw the news story and thought about me. I was flattered, they also seemed to be more open to barefooting and it's benefits. One guy said it makes sense, he thinks I'm taking it a little too far when I go snowfooting but wants to join me for more barefooting on the few warm days we have left. The story was well presented and may open peoples eyes to a wonderful lifestyle.

 

Of course I read your entire post, and the only part I really disagreed with was your statement that "we were not meant to be on pavement." Including your entire message in my quote would have added nothing, because I didn't disagree with your entire message, just that one part of it. And the remainder of your message did not clarify, modify or otherwise put what you said about us not meant to be on pavement in any other perspective. It only explained how you dealt with your belief that we weren't meant to be on pavement - such as the "barefoot shoe" being used like "training wheels" or running on grass and sand, and pointing out that you prefer some sort of "shock absorption" when on hard surfaces. I'm sure many people who are beginning barefoot runners might do the same thing in order to gradually get used to hard pavement. But anyone using those methods to gradually toughen up their feet does not prove or imply that we weren't "meant" to be on pavement.

So how was my disagreement with your premise about our not being meant to be on pavement unfair?