I can be hard to tell fact from BS when it seems like most the information and discussion I can find on this are from people selling products. But, the theory is shoes that have no drop (heel isn't higher than the toe section) don't have the body leaning a bit forward, and results in better posture and less back and knee pain. But, the ankle is a flexible joint, right? Isn't there actually a range of angles it could be comfortable at while keeping the shins, and thus everything above it correctly aligned?

They also tend to have wider toe boxes, or at least ones that better contour the shape of a foot, where as most shoes tend to be tapered at the front and scrunch the toes together. Now, this part is true. People in cultures that don't wear shoes do exist, and their feet are in fact shaped differently. The shape of modern shoes does press everything together and our feet more or less take on that shape. But, is it really that big of a deal what they are shaped like?

Another thing about them is they have thin soles, that do a more minimal amount of padding. While it seems this does force you to rely on foot muscles more, and will strengthen muscles and tendons, at the same time, we're usually not working in dirt like our ancestors were. Humans have had brick or paved roads going back millennia, and certainly most of us today walk on concrete. Is padding necessary to get us back to something more natural, or taking us away from it?

One thing I will note, through my knowledge of history is most humans have always worn shoes with thin leather soles, that contoured the feet better, with no drop. Shoes with a lot of foam and cushioning are very recent. Also the pointed toe shape isn't exactly old either, and that trend was chased for fashion, more than function. The same reason China used to break girl's feet in half.

So, is it healthier, and more natural to use these kind of shoes over the more standardized cushioned shoes most wear? Do modern shoes compressing our feet cause damage? Does padding an arch support serve as a crutch only preventing our muscles from doing the jobs they're supposed to?

Justin,

Some interesting info.

As soon as I saw the thread title, immediately started to think of Mao's "barefoot doctors".

 

The biggest benefit... they really annoy Sergeant Majors

 

One thing for sure is it can help prevent achilles tendon(triceps surae) contracture.

 

They also make it clear you identify as something other than your gender at birth.

 

I can be hard to tell fact from BS when it seems like most the information and discussion I can find on this are from people selling products. But, the theory is shoes that have no drop (heel isn't higher than the toe section) don't have the body leaning a bit forward, and results in better posture and less back and knee pain. But, the ankle is a flexible joint, right? Isn't there actually a range of angles it could be comfortable at while keeping the shins, and thus everything above it correctly aligned?

They also tend to have wider toe boxes, or at least ones that better contour the shape of a foot, where as most shoes tend to be tapered at the front and scrunch the toes together. Now, this part is true. People in cultures that don't wear shoes do exist, and their feet are in fact shaped differently. The shape of modern shoes does press everything together and our feet more or less take on that shape. But, is it really that big of a deal what they are shaped like?

Another thing about them is they have thin soles, that do a more minimal amount of padding. While it seems this does force you to rely on foot muscles more, and will strengthen muscles and tendons, at the same time, we're usually not working in dirt like our ancestors were. Humans have had brick or paved roads going back millennia, and certainly most of us today walk on concrete. Is padding necessary to get us back to something more natural, or taking us away from it?

One thing I will note, through my knowledge of history is most humans have always worn shoes with thin leather soles, that contoured the feet better, with no drop. Shoes with a lot of foam and cushioning are very recent. Also the pointed toe shape isn't exactly old either, and that trend was chased for fashion, more than function. The same reason China used to break girl's feet in half.

So, is it healthier, and more natural to use these kind of shoes over the more standardized cushioned shoes most wear? Do modern shoes compressing our feet cause damage? Does padding an arch support serve as a crutch only preventing our muscles from doing the jobs they're supposed to?

Besure to get your pair in ...pink....

 

I have been wearing 0 Drop shoes for at least 6 or 7 years years. When you start out they suggest on use them for a few hours a day till you accustomed your calves. You can find different Military Style Boots on line that start at 2 degree drop for training then you can go with 0 Drop. I have had those boots and got a couple years out of them. I now wear Altra Shoes "Lone Peak" their trail running shoes as the sole is made for rocky and rough terrain. Though I really don't do much of that it just I like the Foot Box for my toes as they aren't scrunched.

Altra main line is Running Shoes each suppose to have benefits for different terrain. The Altra I have are less than 8 oz each.

All this started with the Barefoot Runner up in the Northwest. He ran many races and won quite a few running barefoot. It didn't matter if it was winter or summer etc. By the way the Roman Soldiers were barefoot as Sandals would't hold up to the rigors of the marches.

I do have a pair of those shoes in blue above. I use them when I go wading in the Lakes and streams. They aren't all they Hype. I have less leg issues since I have been wearing 0 Drop shoes.

The Lone Peaks I have have attachment to be able to put on Trail Gaiters or add Stone Guards liner for those that really want to run uphill in rocky terrain.

I see a lot of you are making fun but the really do have a big following

 

What would be cool is shoes that leave bear prints.

 

Much better to be barefoot when you can, and sandals when you can't, limiting closed toe shoes or boots to when only absolutely necessary.

The LAST thing I want it to be wearing closed "toe shoes" without socks. Disgusting...

The Army thought me to hate wearing shoes/boots for any extended period of time.

 

You should ask women who walk around in heels all day which is less damaging to their feet, 1-2 inch heels, higher heels or just being barefoot?

I‘ve got a mom, two sisters, wife, two daughters, and about twenty aunts and female cousins and can promise you, not a single one would say any size heel is better than barefoot.

Zero shoes like Altra’s are awesome, open toe space and same height all down the sole make it almost as comfortable as barefoot while still offering some protection.

 

So, as a boy I had a massive trauma to my feet, and as a result have always had a podiatrist in the medical team as I aged.

I think there is a HUGE benefit for these types of shoes.

You should really talk to a professional though.

 

Go get a pair of old school slip on Vans. Same thing.

 

Got to disagree with you on this.

 

Some people seem to confuse the "barefoot shoe" moniker with those individual toe shoes by Vibram. They're basically the only brand that actually does that. Most look like normal shoes. They just tend to focus on features like zero drop heel and wider (more foot shaped) toe boxes, and more flexible outer soles.

The wider toebox does seem like it'd prevent a lot of foot and toe related pains and disorders, like bunions, which are caused by narrow toe boxes in shoes that bend your toes inwards. And not having a raised heel does seem to improve long term comfort with standing and walking.

I think the main reason for flexible out soles, or at least the theory behind it, is because if the out sole is flexible, then you don't need the toe spring. The toe spring is that upward curve at the front that allows the shoe to role to compensate for the shoe's inability to flex. The result of that is it keeps the front of your foot in a state of constant extension.

 

Some people seem to confuse the "barefoot shoe" moniker with those individual toe shoes by Vibram. They're basically the only brand that actually does that. Most look like normal shoes. They just tend to focus on features like zero drop heel and wider (more foot shaped) toe boxes, and more flexible outer soles.

Exactly. I have never had toe shoes, and not only do I think they're weird, I think my toes would feel like they're in straight jackets. I've got sandals and shoes. If I lived in a warmer place, I'd only wear sandals, unless I decided to start running (some people can run in sandals; I can't). Yes, they cost more than typical shoes, but they're worth it to me.

 

My wife and I do a lot of backpacking. My go-to trail shoe is an Altra Lone Peak with is lightweight, super comfy, wide toe box and zero drop. The downside is they aren't super durable and they aren't cheap. For water crossings/camp I have some Xero Z-trek sandals which are basically nothing more than a tiny rubber bottom with some straps. They're great for backpacking because they're so lightweight. I'm not sure if I'd consider them for every day summer use.

I don't know if my backpacking footwear is ergonomically the best, but they're great for what I use them for. I have also done backpacking trips with Topos which have a 3mm heel drop. For me, the heel drop really didn't make much of a difference but it's a big deal for some people. I liked the Topos just fine but I slightly prefer the Altras.


There's a website called halfwayanywhere that conducts surveys on thru hikers. I check it out a few times per year as people who have backpacked 3K+ miles in one summer tend to have a pretty good idea of what gear is good and what gear isn't and I always look at the shoe section of the survey. By far, the highest rated shoes are either zero drop or have a drop of 5mm or less. I suppose it makes sense for our bodies to be walking the way God intended.

Continental Divide Trail 2022 shoe survey

 

Well I guess it'd be worth an low budget attempt.

 

You can find knock-offs of the Altras on Amazon (of course, they have knock offs of everything) and some actually have a lot of good reviews.
Like these, they have 17,000+ reviews with an average of 4.3 stars... I don't have any because the knockoffs never come in my size (14W) but I am hoping one day to get a pair without having to pay Altra's price.

Amazon.com | WHITIN Men's Cross-Trainer | Barefoot & Minimalist Shoe | Zero Drop Sole | Wide Toe Box | Track & Field & Cross Country

Buy WHITIN Men's Cross-Trainer | Barefoot & Minimalist Shoe | Zero Drop Sole | Wide Toe Box and other Track & Field & Cross Country at Amazon.com. Our wide selection is eligible for free shipping and free returns.

www.amazon.com

 

My honest opinion is that it's a marketing scheme.

The shoes are extremely expensive despite being less and lower quality materials with less engineering. As far as the benefits of walking with barefoot shoes? Perhaps on flat manmade surfaces, it helps strengthen up your muscles if you have a sedentary lifestyle. I don't think "survivalists" have much use for them. Barefoot shoes are akin to "vegan leather" funnily enough many vegan types buy such shoes for just that same marketing

Think of it like this- let's say you go hiking over harsh terrain. Regardless of footwear, your foot is going to bend and flex in every direction imaginable good shoes/boots allow you to do so further and longer so more reps before pain ends your day. The additional traction of better footwear would allow you to actually keep your footing in MORE strenuous and compromised positions which would be more exercise/range of movement anyway. Another big con to barefoot shoes would be the higher possibility of injury aswell- thinner soles less puncture/bruise resistance, less ankle support when you do overdo it, less shock absorption from repetitive impact against hard surfaces like concrete or when landing from a height, etc.

I don't think there is an inherent benefit to a thin sole from a foot wellness perspective- foot feel is pretty useless on gravel/rocks imo it's just painful after a while and I think the pain will stop you before the fatigue so I don't think that they are going to make your foot stronger vs going further and doing more with "conventional" shoes.

Zero drop? On what terrain? We aren't designed to walk on concrete/asphalt/hard floors etc. and that's about the only surfaces flat enough to actually produce "zero drop"

So $180 for half the materials of a normal shoe and almost none of the protection? They only last half as long as bargain bin shoes? Pass.

Come hunting/hiking with me in "heavy support" boots- I PROMISE your feet, ankles, and calves will be more worked out than anything you can accomplish with barefoot shoes.

If you really want to strengthen your feet over short distances/light terrain... What's stopping you from making some moccasins? Alot cheaper, and trust me after walking 10+ miles you realize why they were considered a "civilized way to walk barefoot"

Btw, the same type of cult following revolves around having, strong ankles support and high heels in boots btw- all sorts of epidemiology prove the validity of both sides.

Find shoes that fit you properly, make sure you maintain your shoes so your gait doesn't create uneven wear patterns and/or cause over-pronation type issues- or better yet consciously and purposely improve your balance/gait with dedicated training and skip the expensive slippers.

.02

 

My honest opinion is that it's a marketing scheme.

The shoes are extremely expensive despite being less and lower quality materials with less engineering. As far as the benefits of walking with barefoot shoes? Perhaps on flat manmade surfaces, it helps strengthen up your muscles if you have a sedentary lifestyle. I don't think "survivalists" have much use for them. Barefoot shoes are akin to "vegan leather" funnily enough many vegan types buy such shoes for just that same marketing

Think of it like this- let's say you go hiking over harsh terrain. Regardless of footwear, your foot is going to bend and flex in every direction imaginable good shoes/boots allow you to do so further and longer so more reps before pain ends your day. The additional traction of better footwear would allow you to actually keep your footing in MORE strenuous and compromised positions which would be more exercise/range of movement anyway. Another big con to barefoot shoes would be the higher possibility of injury aswell- thinner soles less puncture/bruise resistance, less ankle support when you do overdo it, less shock absorption from repetitive impact against hard surfaces like concrete or when landing from a height, etc.

I don't think there is an inherent benefit to a thin sole from a foot wellness perspective- foot feel is pretty useless on gravel/rocks imo it's just painful after a while and I think the pain will stop you before the fatigue so I don't think that they are going to make your foot stronger vs going further and doing more with "conventional" shoes.

Zero drop? On what terrain? We aren't designed to walk on concrete/asphalt/hard floors etc. and that's about the only surfaces flat enough to actually produce "zero drop"

So $180 for half the materials of a normal shoe and almost none of the protection? They only last half as long as bargain bin shoes? Pass.

Come hunting/hiking with me in "heavy support" boots- I PROMISE your feet, ankles, and calves will be more worked out than anything you can accomplish with barefoot shoes.

If you really want to strengthen your feet over short distances/light terrain... What's stopping you from making some moccasins? Alot cheaper, and trust me after walking 10+ miles you realize why they were considered a "civilized way to walk barefoot"

Btw, the same type of cult following revolves around having, strong ankles support and high heels in boots btw- all sorts of epidemiology prove the validity of both sides.

Find shoes that fit you properly, make sure you maintain your shoes so your gait doesn't create uneven wear patterns and/or cause over-pronation type issues- or better yet consciously and purposely improve your balance/gait with dedicated training and skip the expensive slippers.

.02

I agree with this post 100%....

 

Moccasins can give you the sense of being bare foot and still have a margin of protection.
Feel free to stub your toe.
I am one of those that wear sox with sandals, because they are compression hose.

 

Moccasins would be considered a "barefoot" shoe. They have all the criteria. They're also simple enough in design that most people capable of doing at least basic leather work can make them correctly.

 

Red wing 11.5 EE king toe work boots (for my Fred Flintstone feet).. everyday rocks/thorns/EH/WP/

Other wise just go bind your feet

 

Is there actually any benefit to barefoot shoes?

Yes.

You can make the shoes with half the raw materials, and sell them at twice the price.

But really...the low drop shoes have a place in good foot health.

As far as wide toe boxes....shoe makers have been making those for as long as shoes were made. But once people stopped getting measured so they could get the right size, and started buying shoes in a box based on length...people forgot that was a thing.

 

Is there actually any benefit to barefoot shoes?

Yes.

You can make the shoes with half the raw materials, and sell them at twice the price.

But really...the low drop shoes have a place in good foot health.

As far as wide toe boxes....shoe makers have been making those for as long as shoes were made. But once people stopped getting measured so they could get the right size, and started buying shoes in a box based on length...people forgot that was a thing.

So what you're saying is I should look for the features, but not over pay for less product.

 

I HAVE to have a lot of arch support, or my plantar fasciitis absolutely kills me. I don't know how much the lifted heel in my insoles help, but I find that being barefoot for extended periods starts to hurt my knees more than being tilted. That could be because of my numerous knee injuries though, and my weight certainly doesn't help. That said, getting out of my shoes can relieve pain too.

 

Perhaps shoes with arch support prevented the muscles which produce the arch from getting the exercise it needed, making you dependent on arch support now?

 

I've been using these for a couple months now, and I'm not going back to the shoes and boots I had in the past. What I wasn't expecting is the thinner, more flexible soles actually made me feel lighter. It made my steps feel softer, more cushioned, despite having less cushioning because it let me more comfortably use the front of my foot for landing steps rather than landing on the heel, which put a whole extra joint in there designed for it.

Over all it just made me move around with the feeling that I was suddenly half the weight, twice the speed and stamina just by making extra use of that extra joint as opposed to coming down heel first, which you pretty much have to do on a boot with a raised heel.

Even if I were to go with a thicker, more cushioned sole as a necessity for maybe something harder wearing, or for a work shoe, two features I definitely don't think I'd go back from at this point is the naturally shaped toe box, because why would you want a toe box that deforms your feet vs one that doesn't? And I don't think I would want something with a raised heel anymore.

 

If "barefoot shoes" are beneficial, then going barefoot should be as good or better.
I haven't worn shoes about 95% of the time for the past 10-15 years, and I don't feel any too good right now.

 

Well, you have to wear shoes in public, usually. And stepping on certain things barefoot can cause serious damage. But that doesn't mean you need a lot of padding or cushioning just to protect from getting cut open by a stick or rock. If you haven't worn shoes much, and have more naturally shaped feet, then yeah, pretty much every shoe and boot on the market is going to be uncomfortable except for those that focus on having a toe box that is shaped to match the natural shape of the foot. In your case, such a shoe may be all that is comfortable for you. I understand that if I continue to use them, I will get to a point where I wouldn't be able to use normal shoes again either, but I cannot see how permanently, and unnaturally shaping my feet just to have more footwear options would be in my best interest. If it comes down to it, I'll just have to start making my own.

 

I dunno. If I'm not leaving the house I rarely have shoes on. I have to say I much prefer bare feet over any kind of shoes -- except maybe my Danner boots. Damn those things are heavenly. 🤗🤗

 

I can be hard to tell fact from BS when it seems like most the information and discussion I can find on this are from people selling products. But, the theory is shoes that have no drop (heel isn't higher than the toe section) don't have the body leaning a bit forward, and results in better posture and less back and knee pain. But, the ankle is a flexible joint, right? Isn't there actually a range of angles it could be comfortable at while keeping the shins, and thus everything above it correctly aligned?

They also tend to have wider toe boxes, or at least ones that better contour the shape of a foot, where as most shoes tend to be tapered at the front and scrunch the toes together. Now, this part is true. People in cultures that don't wear shoes do exist, and their feet are in fact shaped differently. The shape of modern shoes does press everything together and our feet more or less take on that shape. But, is it really that big of a deal what they are shaped like?

Another thing about them is they have thin soles, that do a more minimal amount of padding. While it seems this does force you to rely on foot muscles more, and will strengthen muscles and tendons, at the same time, we're usually not working in dirt like our ancestors were. Humans have had brick or paved roads going back millennia, and certainly most of us today walk on concrete. Is padding necessary to get us back to something more natural, or taking us away from it?

One thing I will note, through my knowledge of history is most humans have always worn shoes with thin leather soles, that contoured the feet better, with no drop. Shoes with a lot of foam and cushioning are very recent. Also the pointed toe shape isn't exactly old either, and that trend was chased for fashion, more than function. The same reason China used to break girl's feet in half.

So, is it healthier, and more natural to use these kind of shoes over the more standardized cushioned shoes most wear? Do modern shoes compressing our feet cause damage? Does padding an arch support serve as a crutch only preventing our muscles from doing the jobs they're supposed to?

I love my "barefoot shoes." The only shoes I have that aren't that type are the ones someone else has given me, and I almost never wear them.

For me, the plusses of "barefoot shoes" is that my heel is not elevated and the toe box is actually wide enough for my toes. Typical shoes squish my toes or are so loose on my heels it's ridiculous. The result of growing up barefoot as much as possible, I guess.

 

Well, yeah. We should also recognize what is identified today as a "barefoot shoe" is actually just a more traditional type of footwear. All throughout the middle ages, and even early modern period, thin leather soles with a lot of flex and no heel were pretty common. Pointed toes like we see now are a more common fashion trend. I still see people wear moccasin type shoes for comfort, which still technically has all the features of a "barefoot" style. And actually talking to someone from Japan recently, I actually learned a lot of people, in a lot of industry actually still wear tabis, which are those split toe shoes you usually see associated with ninja costumes. They're not really actually associated with ninjas though, they derive from a sock designed with a split toe to work with their sandals and evolved into being everyday footwear for pretty much all Japanese in all parts of society and are still produced for everyday use there. And technically still fit all the points of a "barefoot" shoe.

So, yeah, it's just a way to bundle all those features together, but it really fits a lot of common and traditional type of footwear that has been around for a while. And if I can't really find anything made of higher quality materials when these wear out, I might even learn how to make something myself. Perhaps in a moccasin style. We'll see. If sandals use a thin sole of the correct shape, I guess that'd work as well. I'm just more of a boot, less of a sandal person, so if I can find a tactical style, or tall hiking boot, or even a heritage style leather boot with the features, that'd pique my interest the most.