There are so many things put together here almost randomly, because of that its easy to criticise the whole thing, but there are some reasonable things in it.
Having barefoot connection with soil is definitely good for you, so is any reasonable exposure to nature. The key here is exposure to nature, walking on asphalt or concrete is not nature. This is about walking barefoot so that your soles connect to the soil, earth, dirt, grass or sand. In the modern world of course you have to be careful and watch out for sharp objects, all kinds of garbage etc.
People who have a piece of land, garden or park access can definitely use it for barewalking, running or just standing - it doesn't matter as long as feet touch the soil, without any fancy, minimal, shoes or anything like that.
In many spiritual places they require you to remove your shoes and even your socks, there are certain benefits of doing that, but even the holiest of people would wear shoes when going on rough terrain, thats just a question of sanity.
> Having barefoot connection with soil is definitely good for you
Citation needed
There are studies you can find about it, for example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11211751/
The simple way to understand it is exposure to nature activates some internal mechanisms that evolved with us through millions of years of species living in nature. In a similar manner it feels so good to go to a beach on a sunny day - you have exposure to earth, water, sun and wind.
Yeah...I'm not saying he's wrong, but I am saying you can get hookworm that way. Choose your soil wisely.
My recommendation would be to just try it out, to feel for yourself.
Just because something feels good, doesn't mean it is good.
Not always, yes. But in this case I can test it by general wellbeing and shape of feet. The more I walk barefeet on grass and rock, the stronger my feet are. And more sensitiv. With shoes, I don't really feel my feet, with barefeet I can now feel the grass on different parts on my skin. Feels good. Improves my mood -> is good for me.
While that feels good for you, this does not constitute the evidence that "going barefoot is good for you." A sibling posted some studies that would be more interesting (I'll admit I've not read them).
What "good for you" would look like to me would be longer life expectancy, better health outcomes at different stages of life, etc. "Strong feet," for example, doesn't meet that standard for me. I'd want to see a link that work to actively strengthen one's feet creates those better life outcomes.
Do you need a study for every little thing?
You body does provide you with a quite elaborate feedback system. And you can also objectivly meassure. (E.g. how long you walk without pain)
And studies can be very misleading. For example it matters a lot, if and how often you walked barefeet as a child. If you didn't, your bones will be not so strong developed and then barefeet walking/running can be even dangerous. Trusting a general study that maybe did not take this into account (or did not mentioned it prominently) here vs trusting the feedback from your nerves in your feet would be not wise.
> Do you need a study for every little thing?
I didn't say that. What I said:
> What "good for you" would look like to me would be longer life expectancy, better health outcomes at different stages of life, etc. "Strong feet," for example, doesn't meet that standard for me. I'd want to see a link that work to actively strengthen one's feet creates those better life outcomes.
"It feels good" isn't an objective outcome that necessarily means something is "good for you."
> And you can also objectivly meassure. (E.g. how long you walk without pain)
This is a better outcome but I'd say it's not objective because I walk without pain while wearing shoes.
Not sure of any benefit of soil-feet connection.
But make sense to being able to move our feets freely without any hard sole that limits the development of the foot musculature and joints.
Come on man. 1+1=2 citation needed?
I don’t need a citation. Just a simple explanation why it is so obvious and so beneficial.
Do you need an explanation of why the touch of another human would be obviously beneficial? I find walking on bare dirt or earth to be similar. I think experiencing is believing.
I think the need for an explanation/citation scales relative to how common a given anecdotal experience is.
I’ve spent plenty of time walking barefoot outside but apparently have not experienced what people here are claiming. Not saying no one can/does, but at the very least the experience doesn’t seem to be universal.
Definitely there are studies about that, for example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11211751/
>but apparently have not experienced what people here are claiming
Or you did have experience it just did not notice. The problem with experiential comparisons is that different people have different levels of sensitivity and attention. So just because you didn't feel it consciously doesn't mean you did not benefit from it.
> Or you did have experience it just did not notice.
Exactly my point, and this is why personal anecdotes are just not sufficient for something like this.
Life is full of people telling us to do <thing>, because they’re convinced that their personal experience with that thing indicates some universal truth.
In the circles I grew up in, that meant growing up unvaccinated among many other highly questionable things.
The point is that the burden of proof must be higher than “it feels good to me” or what amounts to the naturalistic fallacy.
I have no actual opinion about the efficacy of walking barefoot other than to note that I didn’t knowingly experience what other people passionately describe. I also know there are many things that make me feel good that have no effect on many people.
OK now I need a citation lol.
Cite me then as far you trust I'm representing my own truth. I don't even know what you are demanding exactly. There's not going to be any universal human truth so its going to be made up of opinionated reporting with arbitrary scientific assignments. You don't believe that the average person has positive feelings about walking on meadow or mud or whatever scientific endpoint? Or you don't think human touch is on average perceived positively? Or you want to see some +X years survival for those in arbitrary group compared to this other arbitrary group. Like I said, I believe what I experience, so very sorry to extrapolate a simple life experience almost universal to all humans since the dawn of time onto my suburban vice lord.
>You don't believe that the average person has positive feelings about walking on meadow or mud or whatever scientific endpoint? Or you don't think human touch is on average perceived positively
As noted elsewhere, something being "perceived positively" is different than "good for you". I perceive drinking beer positively, after all. But I think we can agree that it's not good for me.
Your whole comment is basically "science doesn't matter because I feel good when I do X".
>Like I said, I believe what I experience, so very sorry to extrapolate a simple life experience almost universal to all humans since the dawn of time onto my suburban vice lord.
This is unnecessary snark.
By all means, go barefoot or whatever makes you feel good. I even think that there's probably some sort of merit to it. But you don't need to get so defensive over someone asking if there's something more substantial than "well I said so" when it's being recommended to them. Especially if there are counter-examples also in the thread.
Do you need a citation or can I safely assert: "Things are good for me that make me feel good absent it being a poison." I just don't think walking on grass or whatever is that far away from ground truth. Coming by in a thread discussing fairly universal experiences and asking for a citation isn't productive at all. "Ya well my great uncle didn't have feet so it would be excruciating for him to try to walk on grass." is just as productive.
>Do you need a citation or can I safely assert: "Things are good for me that make me feel good absent it being a poison."
I don't need a citation, no, this is pretty obviously false.
Once again, go ahead do do what you want, but asking for a citation when people are recommending a change in lifestyle because it is "good for you" is a completely reasonable thing to do.
Especially when their first ask was "Just a simple explanation why it is so obvious and so beneficial." (i.e., not a scientific study or anything), to which you responded with some hand-waving and a question instead of a simple explanation.
In my opinion, I would rather walk through mud with some kind of footwear on than barefoot, and I think the beauty of a meadow can be appreciated with or without footwear
1+1=2 in fact requires hundreds of pages of (kind of old school) math to prove.
nod I grew up with access to a big back garden, so barefoot walked on it a lot, unfortunately it involved crossing a little bit of asphalt pathway to get to, and I still have nightmares of the feeling of small sharp stones digging in my feet.
A similar late-teens habit I developed was going out and laying on the grass pretty much naked, when I couldn't sleep late at night, and just staring at the milky way. It was a peace I have no idea how I'd get back.
"In modern world you have to be careful and watch out for sharp objects, all kinds of garbage etc."
Also in the pre modern world. Spikey plants are in many places and my feet regular hurt in summer.
"but even the holiest of people would wear shoes when going on rough terrain"
Unless when done with purpose. It is a good awareness training, walking through the bushes barefeet. One moment of distraction .. ouch.
>even the holiest of people would wear shoes when going on rough terrain, thats just a question of sanity.
https://medium.com/mr-plan-publication/natures-footprints-ex...