But if you really want to get somewhere:
14 Likes
Thank you for providing a example of footwear that is even more unnatural and crazy then the over-engineered shoes the barefoot walking movement is trying to get away from 
1 Like
Shoes that were common during specific historical periods. They have unique characteristics, were made of different kinds of materials, etc. And yes, this is specifically discussing a particular place. No one is saying that shoes in different places or time periods didn’t also make people walk different in other places or times.
5 Likes
I don’t know if it’s been changed since I was a scout, but the scout handbook from the 70’s said that was how native americans walked and encouraged it for safety in the woods (sharp bits), a quieter walk, and stronger legs.
I think that kind of walk works for the majority of footwear that does not cushion or protect the foot enough from the ground and objects on said ground. Barefoot walking, moccasins, etc.
As you say though, the video is informing people that would not consider that in medieval times the manner of walking still had not changed to what we are used to. It was shortly after that it did begin to change when heeled footwear became a thing.
I recall watching a Lindybeige video where he discusses non-heeled footwear being lousy in bad weather and terrain, especially when transitioning between muddy ground and hard stony soil. It was really common for soldiers to slip when marching or fighting. A fix was to hobble your soles with nails, and that does not sound comfortable at all, and they were hell to use on paved roads. Soldiers might have needed to be switching footwear constantly.
Edit for clarification: I was adding to your point btw @anon61221983 
always weary of the dreaded mansplaining.
3 Likes
It is. It starts with an assertion, makes a counter - assertion, tries to show that the counter - assertion is invalid and then uses this to assert that the original assertion was also invalid.
Assertion 1: Doing X, which is a member of Q and is not a member of Z, is a bad thing.
Assertion 2: Instead of X you should do Y, which is related to X but which is a member of Z and not a member of Q.
Assertion 3: Some other members of Z, however, are bad.
Assertion 3 is supposed to expose the incorrectness of assertion 2 by showing that some elements of Z are bad and so the element of Z in A2 must also be bad. But this is faulty reasoning because you have not shown that all elements of Z share the property of being bad.
I had to learn all this stuff as a result of going theology and thus having to learn how to detect bad arguments. It’s said that theology graduates make good lawyers - and also good police detectives. I couldn’t possibly comment, being neither.
When I lived in Rome for 6 months I found that I had adapted to that gait because of the cobble stones. If you landed on your heel and the cobble was not level you could easily turn your ankle, but by landing on the ball and your toes you were able to get more stable footing before your weight was fully on your foot.
Then it went away.
4 Likes
Buy your girl Squeaky Shoes. Teaches them to put the heel down first by rewarding them with a squeak. Kids love them. Parents, not as much. But it worked for my daughter.
15 Likes
Heel striking is not necessarily more efficient. Studies on heel vs. forefoot running form show about a 5% increase in performance. Anecdotally when I switched from heel striking to forefoot striking (yes I run in those creepy toe shoes), my knee problems (specifically inflamed tendons in the knees) disappeared, and I also almost completely stopped turning my ankles, which I used to do at a rate of about 2-3 times a year. I haven’t measured my own performance in heel vs. forefoot, but there’s another factor there in that the shoes are more than 5% lighter than normal padded running shoes. People have told me that when I’m cruising along at at least an 8 minute/mile pace, it really does look like I’m fighting gravity a lot less, very little head bob, and the stride is very smooth.
I’m on a break for running right now, but I’ve put in at least ~1500 miles using forefoot striking so far. I love it, it feels great. Except, yes, when you step on a rock and your arch gets bruised. That’s very shoe dependent, though.
5 Likes
I was actually talking about walking. Using additional muscles and an effectively longer limb for running performance makes more sense to me. And I can’t forgive you for those toe shoes.
2 Likes
Toe shoes…
2 Likes
That was ridiculously cute.
But I would end up going full-rage-state on those shoes if my daughter had them.
1 Like
I have a high tolerance for stuff like that, but then again i don’t have kids so its easy to say when i don’t have to actually deal with it… who knows lol. And yeah the video is crazy adorable.
1 Like
He’s been walking on his balls for half a year now.
1 Like
This has me nodding because this is exactly what you see in manuscript illustrations from the period. At first I had assumed that this was a sort of stylistic choice, but it seems that it was an accurate depiction of how people walked.
1 Like
I put over 1000 miles on my first pair of Vibram Bikilas (not all at once). Those things never die. They just develop a smell that makes you wish they did.
2 Likes
12 Likes
Sooo stealing that one!
This makes me curious about the American colonists who chose to adopt a more native method of dress and footwear. Once they started wearing soft soled moccasins did they keep on heel walking or were they toe walking?
1 Like
