Marks Daily Apple
Serving up health and fitness insights (daily, of course) with a side of irreverence.
4 Nov

The Inherent Absurdity of Barefoot Technology

Vibram, Vivo Barefoot, Softstar, and the other shoe companies making an honest attempt at creating a viable shoe alternative aren’t the only entities capitalizing off the nascent barefoot trend sweeping the nation (and I’m not referring to podiatrists, as much as they like to claim barefoot running will create thousands of new patients). Several shoemakers have taken the barefoot ball and run the opposite direction – down the path of more shoe and more meddling into how the foot works – claiming to have improved upon the near-perfection of the naked human foot with (get this) bulky odd-looking shoes that weigh more than traditional running shoes.

Foremost is MBT, or Masai Barefoot Technology. MBT makes the “anti-shoe,” which is actually an unsteady, unstable shoe with a squishy, conspicuous “rocker” sole. The sole appears to be about 2 or 3 inches thick, and the instability is actually a feature. Yes, the most popular backed-by-internally-funded-science example of barefoot technology is a shoe that forces its wearers to teeter around. Sure, you gain a few inches, but at what cost? Without having tried them (and I honestly don’t plan to), the very notion of simulating barefoot walking by wearing big clunky shoes perplexes and confuses me. Talk about digging a hole to put the ladder in to wash the basement windows! Same goes for MBT’s claim of “natural instability” being the key to “recreating the barefoot experience.” Just what is so natural about being unsteady on your feet? I always figured feet were there to anchor us to the floor and provide stability. In fact, it’s that haptic perception (actually feeling the ground) in our bare feet that gives the brain the signals it needs to distribute shock effectively – tossed out the window now with MBT.

Then there are Skechers Shape-Ups, which are pretty similar to the MBTs: “rocker” sole, big wedge of material under the heel to “promote natural walking,” deliberate instability. They tighten abs, firm butts, and destroy cellulite. Armed with the Skechers Shape-Ups, folks can “get fit without stepping in a gym.” I’ll agree that a gym isn’t necessary for fitness, but strapping on a pair of magic non-shoes and standing there, or walking around the mall hoping for artificial instability to kick in won’t do it.

Bosu ball addicts have successfully integrated balls into many facets of everyday life. At the gym, they do squats, deadlifts, and bicep curls while balancing precariously on bosu balls; at the office, they sit on large balance balls instead of chairs; at night, they wrap their bodies around massive rubber spheres instead of beds. Locomotion was their white whale, though. They tried attaching handles to balance balls for easy bouncing to and fro, but they looked a bit too much like female bonobos in estrus (go ahead and Google that). Well, Reebok’s new(ish) EasyTone line of shoes slays the whale. They’ve actually installed three miniature balance balls into the sole of each shoe (I’m not making this up), allowing wearers to recreate the natural, evolutionary sensation of walking on inflated rubber balls.

This revolutionary barefoot technology, according to its hawkers, compels the wearer to move. Walking and exercising become almost passive acts; the shoes apparently propel you down the street. All you’ve gotta do is be carried away on a couple of foot clouds. Heck, even standing at rest in these babies is a constant, imperceptibly effective workout for your entire body. Who needs to consciously work out anymore?

Maybe the absurdity of barefoot technology isn’t evident to everyone, though. Condemning a non-shoe that’s actually a shoe for claiming to recreate the barefoot experience seems “reasonable”, but it’s always good to back arguments up with empirical data. And all the barefoot tech peddlers claim to have research supporting their products, so it’s only fair that we on the “nay” side also use research.

The American Council on Exercise, a non-profit fitness certification organization, recently put the claims of MBT, Skechers, and Reebok to the test and released the results (PDF) to the public. It should be noted that though the ACE is a non-profit, their continued existence depends on the certification of trainers that would be out of a job if the shoemakers’ “get fit without trying” claims were true, so I can see where some hackles about bias could be raised. Regardless, let’s check out their findings.

ACE conducted two studies. The first subjected 12 active women to twelve 5-minute treadmill trials at varying intensities while wearing different shoes (MBTs, Skechers Shape-Ups, EasyTones, New Balance runners). Each woman tried each shoe three times: a 5-minute, 3 MPH walk at 0% grade; a 5-minute, 3.5 MPH walk at 0% grade; and a 5-minute, 3.5 MPH walk at 5% grade. Oxygen consumption, heart rate, perceived exertion rating (RPE), and caloric expenditure were all monitored.

While all values increased across the board in response to increased work intensity, no significant differences were found in response to the different shoes. They all performed about equally.

The second study had a similar initial set-up – 12 active women, the same four shoe choices, the same 12 treadmill trials at the same intensities – but a different focus. Instead of measuring exercise output, this study examined specific muscular responses. Electrodes were hooked up to measure EMG activity in the gastrocnemius (or calf muscle), the rectus femoris (quadriceps muscle), the biceps femoris, the gluteus maxiumus, the erector spinae (back muscles), and the rectus abdominus (abs). An initial test was run to determine the EMG in response to a maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC); the study would use EMG recordings from the treadmill trials and compare them to the MVIC EMG.

There was no significant difference in muscle EMG activity across different shoe types. EMG activity increased in response to the increasing intensity of the treadmill trials, as is to be expected. ACE’s ultimate conclusion follows thusly: “There is simply no evidence to support the claims that these shoes will help wearers exercise more intensely, burn more calories or improve muscle strength and tone.”

The shoe companies counter with their own internally-funded studies. Here are Skechers’, Reebok’s, and MBT’s research.

All parties obviously set out to prove their point. ACE may have a dog in the fight, however convoluted it might be, and they ran a fairly limited study (small sample size, short duration), while the shoe companies have the obvious objective to sell more shoes and justify it by funding their own research. I’m immediately skeptical of industry-funded research that also happens to support the industry’s product, but that’s completely natural.

My take? I just find it all absurd, to be honest; a battle over which is the lesser of two evils. It’s like those studies purporting to show the benefits of “healthy” whole grains by pitting them against refined, processed grains. Or the study that showed ankle taping provides better ankle stability in people who wear athletic footwear, while completely glossing over the fact that athletes wearing no shoes and no tape performed best and evinced the highest level of foot position awareness (the key determinant in susceptibility to ankle sprains). Neither choice is optimal.

The standard running shoe (New Balance) performed similarly to the fancy barefoot tech. What can we glean from this? What does this say about the necessity of any footwear, let alone barefoot technology? You’ve got two bare feet at your disposal, and I think people should begin learning how to use them before giving up and relying on “barefoot technology” to save them.

Have you tried MBTs or copy cat barefoot/toning shoes? Share your thoughts in the comment board. Grok on!

Photo Credit: MBT

You want comments? We got comments:

Imagine you’re George Clooney. Take a moment to admire your grooming and wit. Okay, now imagine someone walks up to you and asks, “What’s your name?” You say, “I’m George Clooney.” Or maybe you say, “I’m the Clooninator!” You don’t say “I’m George of George Clooney Sells Movies Blog” and you certainly don’t say, “I’m Clooney Weight Loss Plan”. So while spam is technically meat, it ain’t anywhere near Primal. Please nickname yourself something your friends would call you.

  1. Hi. Just my pennysworth: i think MBT’s look ugly, but when I saw a pair on ebay for £30 in my size, I thought I would give ’em a try. I have some fivefinger KSO’s which are my fave workout shoes (when I am not barefoot) but I need “proper shoes” for work – and after a week on MBT’s I have been sold on how really comfy they are. Did a 4 hour walk around London with my wife recently, and had a serious sensation of deep delayed-onset muscle stiffness in the deep stabilizer muscles of both calves – definitely got a workout there! I have good balance, do one-legged pistols for fun and to tease my teenage sons (who can’t do ’em) – but the MBT’s definitely gave my calves a fresh workout. If I worked on a beach, or could spend my time on sand or soft grass, my preferred footwear would be slipslops or nothing; as it is, I think the MBT’s are worth a go if you can find a pair on the cheap. They retail for £195 here in the UK (insane), but are probably worth about £65 in terms of build quality and comfort. I have found them much more comfy than my beloved Clarks, which was a real surprise.

    Try them for a week, Mark. you might be surprised too!


    bill wrote on November 10th, 2010
  2. Yo….

    Once you use Kelso Neg. heel (3.7 degrees ) EARTH SHOES you will be a fan.

    Ebay sells them in your size ( new and used ). The idea behind them is solid. It’s like walking barefoot in wet sand at the beach…..your foot-ball is down 3.7 degrees deeper in the wet sand than the rest of your foot……very easy on your posture and sooooo easy on your back.

    JImmy Dee wrote on November 10th, 2010
  3. Hi everyone,
    I actually have a pair of MBTs which I bought few years ago. I think that I understand the confusion here. These shoes were designed to mimic more natural surface then the concrete. It is true that walking in these shoes initially you feel like walking on a sand (the dry one not wet one) and there seems to be more effort and more muscle groups taking part in this balancing act. After few days you are getting used to it – and I honestly do not think it does anything special to you. On the bad side – these shoes are making your feet completely immobile in them and I think that a prolonged use (I used to wear them often for a year and a half) contribute to feet problems. I was getting horrible cramps in my feet. I took some tests but it was non conclusive. I stopped wearing them because when I felt theat the cram is coming I had to take them of quickly – Yo would not like to experience a cramp in a shoe in which you cannot move your foot – horrible. The only remedy I seemed to figure out was when I felt the cramp coming was to start intensive isometric exercise on big leg muscles. It was improving circulation. In a way by concidence I had to esign form MBTs and I was waking at home bare foot. After few months my cramps went away. I have this feeling that MBTs may be good for your hips and tights and maybe calfs but not so much for your feet. At least I think that this is my casa.

    Magda wrote on November 10th, 2010
  4. I wear the Sketchers because I have severe arthritis in my back, lower spine, knees, and feet. In addition, I am woefully out of shape and overweight. What I can say is that since I started wearing these shoes (at $100/pair) I can now walk and my feet and knees don’t ache like they did. I am more mobile, and I figure some movement is better than no movement. My husband and I are in our early 50s and are embarking on a major lifestyle change in relocating to a new state and are at the same time, trying the Primal lifestyle. What can you do with so many strikes against you to start with, Mark? The shoes got me walking and with little to no pain, which means no meds. And that seemed a positive “step” in the right direction. What else is there for those like us?

    Jan Kaiser wrote on November 10th, 2010
  5. Masai? Haha, the Masai people wear sandals made from old tires.

    Milly wrote on November 11th, 2010
  6. We had a client at our gym in DC who had a quad/TFL pull/strain pretty much all the time. The movements she could do without pain were VERY limited.

    One day, I asked her to workout in her socks instead of the “toning” shoes she usually wore, and BAM! That was it. The thigh issues went away that week and have never come back.

    Josef Brandenburg wrote on November 11th, 2010
  7. I recently bought a pair of Sketchers. They are not the be-all, end-all pair of shoes, but the have a limited upside, at least for me. I have arthritis in my left big toe from what is essentially the dreaded “turf toe” injuries you hear about from football. My big toe does not flex as much as it does with other shoes. Otherwise the shoe is mostly hype. You do get more of a workout; but I compare it to riding a bicycle with under-inflated tires: it is less efficient so it takes more energy to move forward. They are at least a comfortable pair of shoes to wear.

    Bob wrote on November 11th, 2010
  8. I wear MBTs. My understanding is they’re meant to simulate the action of walking on a soft surface, like sand, as opposed to a hard surface, like a road.

    My MBTs have helped amazingly with hip pain I had had for years which no medical professional was able to help me with. Also, finally, I no longer have flat feet. Walking barefoot on a hard surface like floor made things worse for me (at least until recently), it seemed to compound whatever issues the flat feet were causing.

    So, my gut feeling is, sure it’s better to just go barefoot rather than wear shoes that simulate the barefoot experience, but I already had foot problems and the MBTs helped me to the point where I’m now thinking maybe I could even try the whole barefoot running thing a la “Born to Run”.

    Margaret Mitchell wrote on November 11th, 2010
  9. 2 inch sole!

    it’s even thicker than my dress oxford (0.5 ~ 1 inch). (probably more $$$$ too).

    PHK wrote on November 13th, 2010
  10. Here is my little tale. After completing the Nike Women’s Marathon in 2008 and then training for the 2009 spring Robie Creek (half marathon) (8.5 up, 4.5 down) I developed my second ever, very debilitating case of plantar fasciitis. I ended up with orthotics (since everything on the market without these, I owned and tried). It made no sense to me to be instructed to wear these orthotics in all shoes (which I would have to buy all new so they would fit) – for the rest of my life. They were made using ridiculously poor science – but they did help me recover. I asked the doctor how never expecting my feet to do their job was supposed to help me and he did not have a good answer. Soon after, I read Chris McDougall’s Born to Run. The barefoot thing was very interesting to me. While I wasn’t excited about wearing the Vibrams, I was interested in making my feet work. And I thought the book’s information about traditional athletic shoes screwing up feet was right on. So, after getting through the acute phase, and learning some great stretches to use before I stood up, I embarked on making my feet work. I really like the exercises suggested by Bonnie Prudden. I also started collecting shoes with comfortable, thin, flexible soles that offered NO support. My feet got better very quickly between the stretches, the exercises and the non-supportive shoes. A while later, I decided to try the Skechers because I felt they were more comfortable than the MBTs. I currently have two pair. The reason I wanted to try the Skechers was because I wanted to avoid heel strike (like you learn with Vibrams). I didn’t think I’d be getting any exercise benefits – didn’t care. What mattered was avoiding heel strike. I still wear hiking boots and such as well, because on unstable surfaces, the Skechers aren’t a good idea…but for a relatively flat surface, they’re great. I don’t plan to go back to traditional athletic shoes unless I acquire some that have no support with thin, flexible soles that are ultra comfortable. My feet feel great. The Skechers are a fine addition to my footwear collection. And frankly, anything that convinces people to be up and moving is okay in my book.

    Kim Privette wrote on November 15th, 2010
    • Hi, Kim,

      years ago, i had an chiropractor who had a more “aggressive” treatment for injuries than most MDs & therapists.

      he thinks one should get rid of all the braces/supports & start moving as soon as you comfortably can (as long as you’re no longer in pain).

      in his opinions, those are “crutches” that only weakens muscles.


      PHK wrote on November 15th, 2010
  11. Great article, thanks for getting so in depth. Lots of people say they “feel” the burn wearing these types of shoes. So do you think it’s all just in their heads?

    Nate Dame wrote on November 16th, 2010
  12. There are so many replies to this article that I got tired trying to read all of them trying to see if anybody else mentioned Dr. Paul Brand. So I’ll just toss in something about this wonderful person who did some incredible stuff in India around the late 40s and early 50s in healing people with what has been called “leprosy”. I won’t bore you with trying to remember all the details but Dr. Brand, a very special, lovely man who I had the enormous and humbling pleasure of spending some time with, developed a “rocker shoe” to help his patients. He said it was a life saver for many. He wrote several books about his work in India. The one that tells of the rocker shoes is “Pain: The Gift Nobody Wants”. I highly recommend it.

    I’m not sold on all the other health claims of Sketcher’s rocker shoes but there’s real science behind some benefits. It’s not ALL bunk.

    Ann Waugh wrote on November 17th, 2010
  13. I was just wearing them. They make walking on concrete, asphalt and most indoor locations more bareable. My feet blister when I wear VFFS ( I use them for crossfit and sprinting) on those surfaces for extended periods of time. I don’t think you should put them down until you have worn them for a week.I have no stability issues with the shoe. And its a very stable shoe. I’ve been wearing them for several months now. My mom has been wearing them for work for several years now, no stability issues. The thick sole helps absorbs impact for me.

    How can you claim they are unsteady and essentially bad if you yourself have not worn them?

    strom wrote on November 18th, 2010
  14. I was bummed to see my favorite shoes so put down. As a waitress in a busy resort, I had excruciating heel and foot pain until I got my MBT’s. We log about 4 miles a shift, and I have not had ONE foot problem since wearing MBT’s. I might have had to quit my lucrative (for this resort town) job without my MBT’s. The high price tag is nothing compared to custom orthotics or visits to a podiatrist. Of course they are no substitute for working out but I didn’t know MBT claimed that.

    They do work the whole body and thus take stress off the feet themselves. When I get home, I don’t even want to take them off. Whatever else they do or don’t do, who cares, if it works for what you need! They are touted for only even surfaces, and whoever said we evolved walking on uneven surfaces, is right. That is what the shoe mimics: walking in soft sand.

    My income is probably at poverty level, but I have three pairs. Not for hiking or running, but for our modern travels on hard, even surfaces.

    And ugly? Hardly. How about those pointy-toed latest fad women’s shoes for ugly. No one has ever said they look funny to me, mostly people are just interested…

    However, like much of life, they don’t work for everyone.

    Sign me: “Saved by MBT’s”

    GK wrote on November 19th, 2010
  15. I wear the sketcher shape-up shoes.
    I like them because they are very “low impact” which makes it easy on my knees and feet.
    don’t know anything about their claim that you can loose weight or build muscle.
    I am a 60 year old woman. I am not fat. I love these shoes because they are so cushy.

    Maria wrote on December 2nd, 2010
  16. Hey Mark,

    I found this summary of a study which tested exercise response and muscle activity in females with and without these toning shoes. The results show no statistical difference. Interesting read:


    Chris wrote on December 6th, 2010
  17. Nice one Mark. Because some peoples technique of movement is so poor, be it walking or running they think they feel comfort when they try on these numbing contraptions. Actually what they feel is less feedback of their poor technique and so it feels ‘better’ because they kill the feedback that’s trying to help them resulting in even worse movement. I don’t blame folk being sucked into the marketing behind these products. Looking at the big picture these shoe companies are worse for our society than drug dealers. It’s a downward spiral that tax payers are forking out for funding an unsustainable health system with escalating joint and back problems. If there were any justice these companies would be liquidated and the funds put towards real movement education programs.

    Naeem wrote on December 10th, 2010
  18. Mark, what a disappointment this article was to read. In particular when you admitted that you have never worn MBT and “honestly don’t plan to”.

    Isn’t that the same close-minded, ignorant thinking that we make fun of people who still believe the SAD? Isn’t that exact kind of thinking what you are trying to change?

    If you DID try MBT, you might be very impressed. I am a HUGE fan. They are expensive yes, but they are built with exceptional quality and make walking so easy and fun.

    Here’s the thing, I love walking barefoot as much as you do. But I work in an office 9hrs a day! I can’t very well show up in a suit with Vibram 5fingers on! MBT actually makes very good looking black leather dress shoes that you can barely tell are MBTs! I love them. They help compression problems in my back and have motivated me to get a standing desk, simply because they are so comfortable to stand in.

    It’s basically like this, in order of preference:

    1 – barefoot
    2 – Vibram 5-fingers
    3 – MBT
    4 – conventional flat shoes

    Mark, I’m happy you lead a life where you can wear ridiculous looking shoes around. But most of us can’t. And you should give a pair of MBT’s a THOROUGH try before you dismiss them out of ignorance.

    Adam wrote on April 14th, 2011
  19. I’ve worn MBTs. I’ve also had to relearn to walk the old fashioned way. I’m also a medical massage therapist married to a physical therapist.

    I regret the MBTs.

    When I injured my foot I was not supposed to walk unaided on it again. Possibly ever. Through intense barefoot physical therapy I was walking again in a couple months.

    Years earlier I had purchased the MBTs to help with some pain issues I had working on a tile floor 14 hours a day. Sure, it helped while I was working. What it also did was create issues that manifested in pain when I wasn’t wearing them. These issues hung around until I had to relearn to walk.

    In my case I was blessed to nearly amputate my foot. I was forced to truly go back to basics and relearn how to use my foot truly from the beginning and to do it the way it was physiologically designed to work.

    Sarah wrote on May 2nd, 2011
  20. With all due respect, Mark, vibrams are great. If I didn’t have them, I would have to run completely barefoot, which would lead to all sorts of cuts, bruises, and infections.

    Scott wrote on May 24th, 2011
    • With all due respect… 😉 I prefer running completely barefoot to running in my vibrams, and I have gotten no cuts, bruises, or infections.

      With proper form, it’s possible to run a marathon and even longer distances barefoot. I am nowhere near that myself, but I can comfortably run 3-5 miles at a time through my city with zero footwear.

      Armaan wrote on May 25th, 2011
  21. My girlfriend got a pair of the Reebok Easytone shoes (before we were enlightened, when I was still buying supportive shoes to play tennis in).

    These days we both wear Merrell Trail Runners or thin flip flops every day (except for Tues-Thurs for me – stupid business casual dress code!)

    Lee wrote on May 31st, 2011
    • I should add what she thought of them, right?

      She said her legs would get incredibly sore by the end of the day, even when just standing instead of walking. The Reeboks had little packets of presumably air, like little pillows on the bottom of the sole.

      Lee wrote on May 31st, 2011
  22. I like the helpful information you provide in your LED WRITING BOARDS articles. I will bookmark your blog and check again here frequently. I am quite certain I will learn lots of new stuff right here! Good luck for the next!

    Catherine Gudinas wrote on June 19th, 2011
  23. I have been working and walking in the Merrell Pace Glove (Vibram sole) and I LOVE them. LOVE. They don’t look as weird as the toe shoes, and people actually comment on how cute they are! I am working on incorporating them as a running shoe, but my form needs a lot of work.

    Sarah Bozarth wrote on August 23rd, 2011
  24. I actually love Skechers Shape-Ups, no matter how ugly they are. I did not, however, buy them for the ridiculous claims. Even the “science” that the company supports those claims with shows modest results at best, so I wasn’t expecting miracles. I bought them because that big old cushy insert under the heel does an excellent job of cushioning my joints from the concrete floors I have to walk on all day.

    I live in a man-made environment and like a previous poster, I am not at all worried about how “primal” my response is to situations that humans were never meant to endure in the first place. My reality is that of an overweight woman in a professional job where barefoot walking is neither acceptable nor advisable. The claims may be silly, but in my experience, these shoes do have a place for some of us.

    TJ wrote on October 31st, 2011
  25. I’m just beginning to work my way around this site, and I have to say, I find the judgmental nature of the comments on this thread to be very off-putting.

    We all believe, to a greater or lesser degree, in recreating, as best as possible in this modern world, the conditions in which humans evolved over millions of years.

    Those evolutionary conditions did not include walking on the hard flat surfaces of the modern world. Walking barefoot on those surfaces does not address that issue. Seeking to cushion or counteract those hard surfaces would seem the logical solution.

    For those of us who must walk on modern, hard, flat surfaces — which would be nearly all of us — MBT makes a shoe that cushions us from the surface and requires us to walk as if we were not on a flat surface.

    One would think this approach would appeal to readers who in their diet and lifestyle choices regularly defy the conventional wisdom of the day. Instead many have seized on this or that piece of marketing (“it tones legs!”), or this or that anecdote (“it requires imbalance!”), or this or that stereotype (“slothful people wear them to avoid exercising!”), in dismissing the MBT.

    We did not evolve in an evolutionary milieu of hard flat surfaces. Walking barefoot or in near-barefoot moccasins or shoes does not address that fact. MBT does. Stop snickering about it and try them before judging.

    Prazak wrote on November 18th, 2011
  26. Magnificent put up, very informative. I’m wondering why the other experts of this sector don’t understand this. You should proceed your writing. I am confident, you have a great readers’ base already!|What’s Happening i’m new to this, I stumbled upon this I’ve found It positively helpful and it has aided me out loads. I hope to contribute & assist other customers like its aided me. Great job.

    mbt outlet wrote on April 28th, 2012
  27. Hi Mark, I came here from an article on fasting and diet at Mercola’s site. Your take on the barefoot issue is similar to my experience.

    I am fortunate to live in a rural area and have made hiking trails in the woods. Every day that it is not too cold, I hike barefoot in the woods.

    Over time, barefoot hiking has brought an intelligence and wealth of feeling to my time in the woods. The loamy texture of the trails, cool smoothness of rocks and stimulation of some of the less sensual surfaces like pine cones and acorns – open a whole new awareness through the soles of the feet.

    My feet developed a stronger padded sole which has adapted to the challenge of barefooting. There is a little more callous layer but the main cushioning has developed UNDER the skin.

    Bare feet are more vulnerable to cuts and bruises and I’ve had my share – but that vulnerability just helps enhance a refined awareness of feeling.

    When I found myself digging in the garden bed standing on the pitchfork with bare feet -and enjoying it – it was clear that my feet had evolved into the competence they are meant to have.

    As far as the Vibrams and other ‘earth shoes,’ I had considered them and then said; ‘What is the point?’ Why would I put synthetic material between me and the ground? Nothing can compare to the joy of fully connecting with the earth.

    Thanks again for your thoughts on barefooting!

    Ellen Landauer wrote on May 4th, 2012
  28. I LOVE my Skechers Shape Ups. Scoff if you will. I have no cartilage in either knee and the extreme padding helps. Without them, I can’t bear the cement floors everything is built on these days.

    Mamachibi wrote on August 14th, 2012
  29. You should also check out Luna Sandals! I have a pair and they are amazing!

    Elisa wrote on November 13th, 2012
  30. We are in the technological 21st century.Foot wear has become a part and parcel of modern gadgetry. Only humans wear foot wear. I will ask one question to all of you do you know how to walk correctly?

    It is pity so much of medical knowledge is pouring in Right walking is not defined and not taught to Kids and adults as awhole.

    MBT and Sketchers are trying to fill the void in the present scenerios.

    Walking consist of to the common man 1.Heel strike
    2.Foot flat
    3.Heel off
    4.Toe off

    These are the stages described by the old timers with their keen observation powers.

    These stages has backing from the body design of Bones and muscles. each stage is achieved by some stages of bony and muscular actions. hence any actions that promotes normal walking is fine. these foot wear are better than the flat footed foot wear.

    Medical science has not described how much is the angle at the ankle at Heel strike or How much angle should be there at Heel off stages In an ideal conditions.

    In such a scenerio lots of research needs to be carried out on walking.

    some of the claims are good but they have exagerated it. Hence apart form the cost trying a variety may be of great help to each of the individuals.

    Thers is little research in this regard in medical fields.

    Dr.Murali Krishna wrote on January 12th, 2013
  31. How to walk correctly

    Human body is desgned for right walking. Walking consist of
    1.Heel strike
    2.Foot flat
    3.Heel Off
    4. Toe off.
    to the common man and visible to the eyes.

    Right walking stimulates all muscles of the lowe rlimb

    This increses the lower limb muscle
    This incresed muscle bulk and power has an enormous significane to the Health of an individual

    Dr.Murali Krishna wrote on January 13th, 2013
  32. I love MTB’s. I’ve got high arches. When I walk on them, feels like walking on air. Sorry to hear about their recent financial situation.

    Darlene Broadway wrote on March 16th, 2013
  33. I love my MBT’s. What is all the negativity about. Some people love them, some don’t. We all have different feet. Please don’t knock them. Darlene

    Darlene Broadway wrote on March 16th, 2013

Leave a Reply

If you'd like to add an avatar to all of your comments click here!

© 2016 Mark's Daily Apple

Subscribe to the Newsletter and Get a Free Copy
of Mark Sisson's Fitness eBook and more!