| Children's shoes |
|
I have in my hand a Nike-Air shoe for a 3 year old - quite an expensive item I would guess. Someone on a Course picked it up on the tide-line and thought it might be of interest and they were right! From the heel to the toe there is no bend or give in the sole of this shoe. Completely rigid, this shoe will restrict movement of the forefoot to zero. Compare this kiddies' shoe with the latest in Nikes 'Run Barefoot' range of adult running shoe: The Nike Free. The design uses every technological clever device to ensure that the shoe bends at the front of the shoe. A child's foot is flexible while the average adult foot is rigid and inflexible. How did it come to be so dysfunctional? Could it be because tiny flexible children's feet have been conditioned to walk in such restrictive footwear as this tiny shoe?
The striking difference between these two pairs of shoes - the child's and the adult's has been demand led. Shoe manufacturers have altered their designs because people have started to question some core assumptions, changing what they are prepared to pay for. As the results of this percolate through, parents are increasingly beginning to question some core ideas about their kid's shoes.
But how interested are we really? It's been calculated that 90% of the reasons that we buy shoes concern fashion, status and sexual attraction. There is a tiny 10% window through which we become interested in good foot and body use. We do literally vote with our feet on this one: So long as the shoe looks great, we couldn't care less for the effect it might have on our posture and well-being. You've only got to look, for example, at the effect on the lower back of adding one inch to heel height to a shoe. The consequences are dire, but then so too are the effects of restricting key joints in the kiddie's shoe that I have in my hand.
One reason why we will look through the 10% window is to get an edge in our chosen sport activity. And this is how a major sea-change has come about in the running shoe market. Only a few years ago individuals started to have a long hard look at the notion that expensive cushioned running shoes give you that extra edge. The evidence that is in from these researchers seems to show that far from preventing injury these shoes may well be causing them. Is it possible something similar could be happening with kid's shoes? Up until recently we took it as read that our running shoes needed to cushion and support our vulnerable feet. We thought we were doing the very best for our feet by buying top end high tech trainers. Could it be that in even though we are similarly well-intentioned we might be even more radically damaging our children's feet?
We face a fundamental difficulty if we look into this and it is one that I've been addressing for over 25 years. The problem is this: We don't know what a natural stride is. Everything we look at, all our basic assumptions, our frameworks of understanding are taken from feet that have been conditioned to walk in shoes like the one in my hand. There seems to be an inkling - a dim sense that something is amiss with what we do to our children's feet but we have no solid reliable baseline to say this is what happens to the natural foot when it has to adapt to walking in restrictive footwear. Soon, in a couple of generations there will be no examples on earth of feet that have NEVER been in shoes so we will lose any possibility of making important comparisons. We need to thing out of the box (or shoe) here.
If there was a magic wand - you wave it and then experience for yourself a completely natural stride. Wow, it would be such a revealing and deeply shocking thing. We'd be struck by the way a fully functional foot often does the complete opposite to what a shoe-conditioned foot does. But most striking of all would be the feeling of joy and ease that makes the simple act of walking such a delight. We give up far more than we realise. There are, of course, no magic wands, but the work of the natural running courses attempts to re-acquaint runners with the physicality and fun that comes so naturally to the playful child whose movements becomes so restricted in this shoe in my hand. Among our other concerns for our current generation is the dangerously low level of activity. For the bulk of our history we have been hunter-gatherers designed for high levels of physical activity far in excess of modern lifestyles. Our culture, education, training, increasingly shoves us more and more into our heads and out of our bodies. So many modern maladies find their roots in our ever more inactive lifestyles. Increasingly we see anxious and worried 5 year olds concerned about SAT scores. These are kids who should be tumbling cartwheels, skipping, climbing trees, running around. The kid's shoe in my hand would seriously restrict such playful physicality - make it less fun, less enjoyable. I'm not prepared to do this experiment but I'm sure in my own mind that if I forced my foot into an adult equivalent of this kiddies shoe, then my desire and motivation to be out there running and moving would be seriously diminished. Could the kids shoe issue be part of a much bigger picture? Should we be more concerned about this than we currently are?
Basically we urgently need a baseline, a benchmark to show us just exactly what are the gains and losses of modern protective footwear. True, we are no longer hunter-gatherers. True, our urban environments are full of 'unnatural' dangers. But we might still learn from our origins as well as benefit from our clever technology. One simple thing we might learn from our natural living ancestors: Make footwear temporary. We've come to regard the way we live permanently in our shoe-dwelling as normal and natural. It would be so easy to design shoes that are easily put on and quickly taken off much as we do with gloves. Shoes that give necessary protection without restriction are feasible. If the fascinating sea-change that has happened recently with adult running shoes has anything valuable to guide us through the kid's shoe issue, then key changes will probably be demand-led. Kids shoes will only change when our buying habits do. For more comment and information see The Guardian article below: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/aug/09/barefoot-best-for-children |
