[Spartacus]

They normally off zero support thus in the long run being bad for your feet

Numerous reports and studies have been completed as far back as 1905 to support the benefits of barefoot running. In 1905 pictures were taken of habitually barefoot feet (below) and compared with pictures of habitually shoed feet. The toes on the barefoot feet were spread out creating a wider and more stable base. It was also possible to draw a straight line from the heel to the big toe indicating a perfect naturally aligned foot looking very similar to the foot of an infant.



The toes on the shoed feet (below) were crowded to a point and had taken the shape of the shoe. A straight line could not be drawn from the heel to the big toe indicating misalignment and the negative affect shoes can have on feet. The feet looked distorted and unable to provide the wide base necessary for proper alignment and balance.



In 2004, Dr. Timothy Noakes conducted a study comparing the impact of forefoot strikers and heel strikers. The study concluded that the forefoot strike used by barefoot runners has less than 50 percent shock through the knees than a heel strike -- the most common strike for shoed runners.

In 2010, Dr. Daniel E. Lieberman released the results of a study comparing the mechanics of barefoot runners against those who wear cushioned running shoes. The study determined that most barefoot runners land with a forefoot or mid-foot strike and most shoed runners land with a heel strike.
The study also concluded that the forefoot or mid-foot strike results in almost no impact, while a heel strike has an impact of up to three times the runner's body weight. This supports the theory that heel striking can cause running injuries.


Read more: http://www.thepeacefulrunner.com/barefoot-running.html#ixzz2OEn7JuiE

sharing what i read about it. I'm still not so convinced.