Why do we like flat shoes?

Usain Bolt might disagree with the black magic comment above… There are all kinds of advances and inventions that add efficiency to the way humans operate. The natural way isn't alwasy the most efficient, so that's a pretty weak argument.
—-

Don't understand that. Bolt isn't from Africa, isn't a distance runner, and runs in minimalist spikes… no cushioning, just a spike plate. The black magic of marketing has made him one of the highest paid athletes on earth buy selling a bunch of junk most people don't need… and he could probably run just about as fast barefooted.

Anyway, back on topic. For the last 3+ years I have been hiking mostly in less than minimalist shoes; XC flats. No rock plate, minimal cushioning, heel drop of 5mm or less, and I buy them at least one size large. And I have worn out several pairs. During this time I have had zero blisters, unless you count the one impact bruise that turned into a blister… but that went away after hiking more than 40 miles in the two days after the injury.

Ancient man (includes women), for the most part, walked everyday. But it is was probably uncommon for most of them to walk more than 20 miles in a day. He normally did not wear shoes except maybe in winter to keep his feet warm or sometimes when traveling over difficult terrain. When one goes barefooted a lot, blisters can't happen on the bottom of your foot. Our ancient man was not overweight. Put all this together over hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years and the foot structure was optimized.

Now today many of us are overweight, we don't walk everyday, we never go barefooted, and then we expect footwear to compensate for a lifestyle that is incompatible for efficient walking/backpacking.

So… walk every day, get your weight down so you are lean, and walk barefooted a bit everyday. Then you won't need fancy shoes. A light, thin, flat shoe will serve you well. Just make sure they are big enough or even too big. All those "advances and inventions that add efficiency to the way humans operate" are just compensations for the root cause problem… sitting on our butts too much.

Hi Nick

> walk every day, get your weight down so you are lean, and walk barefooted a bit everyday.
> Then you won't need fancy shoes. A light, thin, flat shoe will serve you well.
In Australia we call them flip-flops or thongs.

Cheers

I didnt know there were so many Anthropoligists/ Physiologists/ Podiatrists here on BPL. So where did you get your Masters/Doctorate/PHd's from?

"So where did you get your Masters/Doctorate/PHd's from?"

University of North Internet with post graduate study at Blog College

I have found that no matter what shoes I'm wearing, what is important is forefoot striking, rather than heel striking. Sure, it matters less for hiking than for running, but it still makes a world of difference. Some would argue that our foot evolved to forefoot strike. It is after all a rather perfect shock absorbing design when you land correctly. Flat shoes are great because they naturally make you land on your forefoot (if you don't, it hurts like hell). Big shoes are also great, especially if you train yourself to forefoot strike anyways. The problem with most shoes that have huge lifts is that it encourages you to land on your heel, which over time, has been found to cause injury, especially when running.

I'm not a scientist, but that's what I've found through personal experience! I don't wear flat shoes, but I also don't wear Nike sneakers. I have found a nice middle ground and trained myself to land on my forefoot. Since doing this, I have had zero blisters, zero knee problems (which I used to be plagued by) and really zero leg injuries.

Heel striking is more common than forefoot striking when WALKING barefoot. There is definitely a difference in gait and foot striking between walking and running for most people. You are the second person I've heard that forefoot strikes while walking though, so it seems it may not be totally uncommon. I have attempted it but it feels quite awkward to me.

I heel strike while walking and mid/forefoot strike while running.

You guys ignored how us women evolved completely differently. You see, we ( not our feet) have evolved to require a 2 to 4 inch heel. That dainty, insecure stride may not feel good and cause us injury at times, prevent us from running away if in danger, but the benefits apparently outweigh the harm/ risk. The elongated leg ( and awkward stride) that comes with a high heel, can actually do wonders to assure our procreation. The money we spend in these uncomfortable pretty devices is quickly offset by securing a wealthy mate. Even in the workplace it pays to look good, so the increased income will provide the good benefits we need to treat the foot/ leg/ back problems that will ensue later on life.
Evolution is so interesting; sometimes to gain something in one area we lose a little in another…

All in good humor ; )

^^^
High heels were popular among men in the Victorian age. I'd actually guess that over all of history men have actually worn high heels more than women.

Another bit of shoe history to consider…
The caveman known as Otzi that died about 5,000 years ago and found in an Alps glacier was found with what experts perceive as extremely sophisticated shoes. They were so well thought of that a Czech shoe company even offered to buy the rights to sell the shoe. Soft grass essentially were used as socks and upon trial many have said to work even better than a traditional sock. Maybe newer technologies/knowledge are not always the better technology/knowledge???

"Maybe newer technologies/knowledge are not always the better technology/knowledge??"

Agreed.
If what you guess is true, that in history men have worn heels more than women, then the new trend in male shoeware is definitively an improvement.
I am driven by both function and aesthetics ( Swiss and Italian…), but the former trumps the latter. Now if men could only lose that odd, long, colorful piece of fabric around their neck that could get caught and potentially choke them…:)

>"Now if men could only lose that odd, long, colorful piece of fabric around their neck that could get caught and potentially choke them…:)"

Kat, do you mean our capes?

Let's not forget the Peacock in all this. That huge colorful tail is a perfect example of evolution creating the most efficient possible…oh, wait.

As Kat cleverly points out–while poking fun at the guy-centric language of these posts–evolution is primarily about reproductive success.

Roger, I have never had my feet measured in a Brannock device, unless that's the metal devise at the shoe store??? That tells me I'm size 10 at D width.

I'm looking for simple hiking shoes…not running…I will say I've been trying a lot on and learning which brand feels best for this summers 500 miler. I do a grerat deal of hiking and general walking, but obviously nothing like the 30 mile days I did on the trail last summer. I'm cutting that back to 20 mlies/day this year and hope the red meat blisters go away on the balls of my feet.

Steven, I did have the green superfeet inserts. They did stop my feet from moving forward, I think.

Thanks everyone for your input.

Kat, do you mean our capes?

Yup :)
They are pretty and only the most mighty of men wear them, but …..really?
Neckties, cravats and bows of all kinds.

Edited to add a disclaimer:
I have been known to wear a small heel with a fitting dress, a couple of times a year.

I haven't had any blisters since I switched from hiking boots to trail runners.

I'm smiling!

"As Kat cleverly points out–while poking fun at the guy-centric language of these posts–evolution is primarily about reproductive success."

Exactly. We are just a couple of generations from clothes/shoes being chosen solely based on which was more excessive and ridiculous. Reproductive success for many had to do with how wealthy you could dress. We are talking about a generation of people that had a flour + bread shortage mainly because the rich started to deem it fashionable to throw flour on their foreheads.

I have a B.S. in BS, and I stay at a Holiday Inn Express frequently.

Hi John

> Brannock device, unless that's the metal devise at the shoe store
That's it.

Cheers

Hi Kat

Loved it!!!!!
Does this also explain bikinis?

Cheers

Hi Roger,
The Bikinis' role in assuring procreation is usually associated with other evolutionary traits; the monokini, on the other hand, seems to aid irregardless of other factors.
At least there seems to be some function and comfort associated with the garments.

First, an anecdotal observation from someone who spends as much time as possible going barefoot (even when running, or backpacking if the terrain allows it without slowing me down): I tend to strike more with my forefoot. I call this the 'tender-foot' walk even though I am not a tenderfoot, and this seems a sensible and natural way to walk barefoot on any terrain that is not perfectly smooth and soft. You will see Cody Lundin doing this a lot too, and he no doubt has really tough soles! But a forefoot strike would probably get pretty tiring to do for long days on the trail, so some protection for the foot allows more of a heel strike and longer distances at pace.

As for evolution, well, where to begin. As someone who is well past the age of reproduction, I can assure you that evolution really doesn't serve us well, as we can't pass on the genes for aging well. Our caveman friends probably did well to make it to 30-40 years, just long enough to breed and raise a family. Also, in evolutionary terms, humans branched off pretty recently from our ape ancestors, so to argue that evolution has had plenty of time to optimise homo-sapiens for anything at all doesn't make sense to me. Even in our ancestral environment, there was so much that could and did go wrong with our ancestors that to suggest we can't improve on nature's design for our well-being is something I strongly disagree with.

I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer to flat shoes versus cushioned heel shoes. I would put this in the category of 'everyone is different' and do what works for you. As someone well past my reproductive years, I can assure you that one aspect of aging where evolution seems to particularly suck is that the fatty heel pad we all have in our youth, eventually thins, making the heels more sensitive to insults from the environment. As someone who has osteoarthritis in my ankle from a crushed ankle 20 years ago, I can also say that good shoe design is a god-send in that situation too. I'm pretty sure evolution didn't intend for my ancestors to even survive such a bad accident, much less be able to walk normally well into my older years. So in a waffly way, I'm all for going barefoot, and I'm all for comfortable modern footwear too, but none of this is thanks to nature's random genetic intervention in my ancestors gene pool IMHO.

And yes, even bare feet can blister, but I don't get blisters any more now that I figured out that, for me, wearing shoes too small (in length, width or depth) was the culprit. Shoes are tricky, and hiking shoes even more so, as you need to allow room for socks which are often thicker than you would normally wear, swelling of feet from just being on them for long hours, plus swelling from them being constantly wet, or hot, or that salty meal you ate the night before. Or 'that time of the month', or a million other things.

There is at least one good thing about being past my reproductive years…I no longer have to justify wearing ridiculous high-heeled footwear to catch a mate :)

For the past 12 months I have either gone bare feet, or worn Teva Zilch or Chuck Taylors. Hiking in Innov 310's. I haven't really read any of the pro-minimal footwear stuff. My feet just seem so much stronger now and when I occasionally wear a shoe with a large heel to toe drop it feels very unnatural. I don't know if I will try anything more minimal for hiking as I need a well lugged sole for NZ conditions, but I may try the X-Talon 212 if the toe box is OK.

Well, I don't seem to be convincing anyone about the super efficiency of evolution! Oh, well.

I got interested in flat shoes after realizing that, while going uphill is probably a little easier, going downhill is worse with the slope of the shoe adding to the slope of the ground. Seemed pretty crazy and after experimenting with flat soled sandals and shoes I'm sold even for regular street shoes.

Hi Lynn

> in evolutionary terms, humans branched off pretty recently from our ape ancestors, so to
> argue that evolution has had plenty of time to optimise homo-sapiens for anything at all

Latest digs in South Africa suggest that cooking might go back more than 1 million years.
Homo erectus may go back 2 Myears or more, and about 3 Myears ago there were changes in the shape of the foot.
Enough time …

Cheers

We have done this many times…
Just one comment.
I noticed that in Nepal the lowest (poorest paid) kitchen hands had no shoes on or Flip Flops (rubber sandals)
The regular porters mostly had hand me down runners/trekking shoes (from previous customers)
The Sherpa all had boots , not runners BOOTS.
I don't think that our Sherpas were sponsored or otherwised paid to wera boots (yes, maybe brainwashed by American TV programmes…)
Anyway , carry on…

OK another comment…
If a 100m sprinter could go as fast without THOSE shoes as with, someone would do it.
( you would get more TV exposure that way. More TV exposure better sponsorship…)

A bit more since I am in the mood and I don't like conspiracy theories.. (yes I am a skeptic)

Apparently there is a great lack of understanding on what motivates many if not most athletes, and that is to win not to make a lot of money (as a priority) .
Or to put it another way if I could say to a runner " I will guarantee you an Olympic gold medal if you do not wear shoes but you will get no sponsorship whatsoever" I bet that at least half of them would jump at it…

Franco

@ Lynn,
Great to see you back. Lots of folks were wondering about you and hoping you were doing well.

@ Franco,
Although I have been advocating minimal shoes, for carrying large loads as the expedition porters carry, a good boot would be appropriate IMO.