Flip flop rant on Slate.com

[stjohnthegambler]

Holy crap, there's a rant against flip-flop wearers on slate.com, the bulk of which seems to consist of the fact that flip-flops are only 10% away from being barefoot. Here's one crazy quote:

"I contacted some professionals to confirm my suspicion that flip-flops are not only unappealing and unsanitary, but actively bad for the health of the human foot. Dr. Richard Kushner, a podiatrist in New York City, stopped just short of committing to the condemnation of flip-flops per se—though he allowed that they left the foot more vulnerable to injury, and that any thin-soled, unsupportive shoe would encourage the eventual degradation of the structures that maintain the joints of the foot: “If the foot is too flat on the ground, there’s a clawing effect that happens with the toes.”"

The full article is here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...gainst_flip_flops_put_a_shoe_on_you_slob.html

Makes me almost want to be a troll and go to the comments sections, but I'm sure any defense of bare feet would be flamed away by righteous shoe wearers. But if someone is brave enough, let me know how it goes!

 

[Longboard]

St. J the G,
Chillin' in your former town most of the day today has me just ignoring that ignorance .
But ask again in a day or two!

 

[stjohnthegambler]

Ah, to chill in Ann Arbor again....

 

[Sid]

Bah, a movie critic writing about flip flops?
Her flip-flop article has received more comments than her movie reviews.
Hahahahaha!
http://www.slate.com/authors.dana_stevens.html
Just another troll looking for attention.

 

[JosephTree]

My contribution to the discussion over there:

Mostly your article reflects your own offended sense of taste and of decorum, losing battlegrounds these days, but feel free to take your stand.

What I find offensive is the appeal to pseudo-science "experts" like a podiatrist and a pedorthist (!?) / orthotic company propaganda director. Neither of these fields has a shred of scientific research to justify its existence. They're only slightly more reputable than voodoo even if they do sport cleaner offices. Look up some of the research done by Dr. Daniel Leiberman and his colleagues at Havard on the evolutionary design of the foot for a contrasting view with peer reviewed research to support it.

 

[Longboard]

I just contributed as well:

Current scientific evidence concludes that going barefoot is a healthier option for most people than wearing shoes, flip flops, or sandals is even when considering that the surfaces being tread upon are man made.
Unfortunately there are some people like yourself that have a personal bias against feet and feel that despite being a "live and let live" type for the most part they will relax that standard and launch an all out fashion police effort of their own.
I am a barefoot runner, walker, athlete, and liver. I began going barefoot to relieve the pain of advancing osteoarthritis, and have enjoyed tremendous success.
When a barefoot runner was featured on the front page of The Wall Street Journal this past March
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578356632609610700.html
the emphasis was on how other gym members are grossed out by feet based on their own visual and unscientifically based hygiene concerns. They even quoted a treadmiller who's major beef was that a barefoot runner next to her had large and hairy feet!
It's time for you to realize that departing from your personal philosophy just because you yourself are disgusted by feet is not in keeping with a standard of integrity.
For more information on why going barefoot is recommended visit the following sites:
http://www.americaspodiatrist.com/
http://www.thebarefootbook.com/

 

[Barefoot TJ]

"...unsupportive shoe would encourage the eventual degradation of the structures that maintain the joints of the foot."

So if we were to go barefoot, our feet would literally just fall apart! Thank goodness we have shoes to hold our feet together!

 

[stjohnthegambler]

Gentlemen: Nicely done! You are far braver than I in standing up to the trolls.

 

[Barefoot TJ]

We have a smiley for that too!

 

[stjohnthegambler]

Most read article on Slate right now, and most comments seem to at least be pro flip-flop, if not barefoot.

 

[TD Moose]

After reading this article, I'm reminded of this crucial question. "Isn't anal-retententive supposed to be hyphenated?"

 

[barefoot kean]

I dont understand how someone could care that much about other people wearing sandals. And I found it hilarious no-one reads her movie reviews and that article got over 2500 comments

 

[kozz]

Dr. Richard Kushner, “If the foot is too flat on the ground, there’s a clawing effect that 0.happens with the toes.”"

That "clawing effect" is part of what makes humans good runners compared to apes. Ape feet have opposable 1st phalanges just like their hands. But human feet have rigid 1st phalanges and opposable 5th phalanges.

One effect I think this has is to improve pronation by stabilizing the transverse arch on footstrike. For demonstration, hold the hand flat and hit the thumb and fingers on a wall, then do it again with the hand cupped naturally, thumb rotated toward the palm, and observe how the bones elastically absorb the shock and rebound. The foot also has a transverse arch, and the ability of the 5th phalange to rotate out of plane like the thumb may serve a similar purpose.

Now put your hand flat on the floor, drag it backwards and observe how much traction you get. Then allow the hand to flex and try again. Sprinters are taught to "claw back" at the ground in order to pull themselves forward. Since they wear spikes, they're only simulating a clawing action, but I think that is exactly how human biomechanics works naturally.

Why did evolution reverse the opposable digits on the journey from ape to human? I think it's because the 5th phalange is usually the first to contact the ground, which gives it leverage and traction for a longer time than the other phalanges, so it evolved to be stronger and "smarter," i.e. rotating out of plane, among non-arboreal hominids.

All hypothetical except for testing on a sample of 1 (me) but I am sure Dr. Kushner is clueless.

 

[Darkand]

Ahhhhh, yep, I couldn't resist.
See if you can spot my alias on there.

 

[Longboard]

They are at 3143 comments now. I've given up trying to read them.

 

[stjohnthegambler]

Unfortunately, all those comments and 'hits' will be taken as a success, rather than a badly written and researched article. That is, that writer's editor probably bought her lunch and said, 'good job!'

 

[Barefoot TJ]

Unfortunately, all those comments and 'hits' will be taken as a success, rather than a badly written and researched article. That is, that writer's editor probably bought her lunch and said, 'good job!'

Hey! You started it all! Hee. Just teasing you.

 

[stjohnthegambler]

I know, my fault. And now that 'article' is one of their featured ones, right on the front page!

 

[Longboard]

I wonder what the record number of comments for a Slate article is. They're now at 3762!