1 May

The idea of 'natural', through the lens of supported shoes vs barefoot shoes. The proponents of barefoot shoes argue that this is the more 'natural' way that feet behave, it's how we evolved to walk. The problem with the theory I think is that we evolved on the savanna. On ground that was mostly soft and undulating, meaning our feet were constantly being stretched to allow full contact with the ground. Then centuries ago we started flattening and hardening the ground we live on, and today our feet almost exclusively walk and run on hard, very flat ground. In direct opposition to how they evolved. This punishes them in all sorts of ways, not least by not allowing them to spread properly, and causing repeated heavy forces on only a handful of joints. What a supported and cushioned shoe does is put the savanna back under the bottom of your feet. It allows them to stretch to take the load across the entire contact surface, and the cushioning mimics softer savanna ground for impact. Meaning you can walk on hard and flat ground but your foot will think you're on the savanna. It's not coddling the foot, it's restoring its natural environment. In other words barefoot shoes are not more 'natural'. They might work for some, for a certain period of time. But over a lifetime they will damage feet, inevitably, if like most modern humans you spend most of your day on hard, flat ground. The 'natural' ideas only looked at the foot, and ignored the environment/context in which it evolved.