In the new shoe, the purpose is to have the leather accurately follow the outlines of the average soldier’s foot arch, but without compressing the sole muscles to such an extent that their function will be interfered with and their development and strengthening be impaired. Barefoot peoples have no such arch support and flat feet are practically unknown among them. Rigid support of this region weakens its intrinsic muscles by favoring their non-use, and thus tends to directly cause the condition of flat-footedness which it is attempted to avoid. This fact is opposed to common belief, but the latter is based on lack of knowledge of the anatomy of the foot and misconception as to its function. (o) The shoe should not support the arch of the foot in the sense of lifting it up or buttressing it from below. You can read the whole book at the invaluable. Minimal footwear enthusiasts may find the language below eerily familiar. So why, exactly 100 years later, are we still debating whether the foot needs lots of external support and cushioning? Why are overbuilt athletic shoes and supportive inserts still favored by mainstream opinion? The principle message of this book is that if you want your soldiers to able to march long distances, and arrive at their destination in any shape to fight, you have to give them flexible boots which do not squash the toes or impede the natural movement of the foot. Seems that way back in 1915 we knew that arch support created weak arches, and that thick soles impaired foot dynamics. The correct toes ( here), the socks ( here) and the exercises (and here).In light of Erik’s continuing struggle with plantar fasciitis, and my own neverending search for shoes which fit my monkey feet, we found this 1915 handbook on military footwear, The Soldier’s Foot and the Military Shoe, by Edward Lyman Munson, a fascinating read. With any of them you give that second chance that your feet are asking for. This model is one of the most versatile, although seeing what's coming, it's better to choose between one of their many sandals.Īll of them flexible, without drop, flat and without limiting reinforcements. The shoes that Almudena chose to give her feet a second chance are the Xero Prio. I can't wait for the cold weather to arrive :)".Īlthough if we add the correctors, toe socks and exercises, things change. I've already got my eye on some winter boots from the same brand. I never run (except if I miss the bus!) But I pay attention to how I walk and I'm relearning how to walk. I read about toe separators, but they were uncomfortable,īecause the toes stopped riding on top of each other and I could plant my foot the way it was supposed to. These shoes give you the opportunity to walk as you should, but not the ability. Gradually most of the pain went away, but some remained. I understood that they couldn't take the pain away overnight, after DECADES of shoes that destroyed my feet. I read the opinion of someone who had experienced something similar and I kept them. I bought them but thought about selling them after three days of use, I was still in pain! This is when you would expect to read that the minimalist shoes worked a miracle, but no. When I started to walk after sitting, I could hardly walk. Then my other foot started to hurt, but in theory there was nothing wrong with it. I fell and was diagnosed with a degenerative process in the phalanx of my big toe. She doesn't use this word, she uses a more emphatic one, she says that barefoot shoes are NOT miraculous.įasciitis or plantar fasciitis, muscle contractures.the pain went up from my heel to my ankle. This is what Almudena says. Minimalist shoes are overrated.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |