BS. There are plenty of people in America who remember not putting on shoes for anything but church for months. I personally haven’t shoes with arch support for more than one or two days a month for close to 30 years.
Are you going to have problems if you go 60 years without shoes while being constantly active? Sure. Probably similar to what you would have with shoes.
I am barefoot or in minimalist shoes most of the time and my arches have gotten stronger. You need to ease yourself into it gradually, don’t try running a marathon on your first day unshod
Should I buy flat insoles for my sports shoes? I play tennis and soccer. Is concrete too hard a surface for minimalist shoes? I am tall, so I have heavy footsteps.
bump
The surface is not a problem, your walking / running style may be. If you haven’t been playing sports barefoot or in minimalist shoes for at least six months (imo), go with support. And be smart - if you get serious foot pain that doesn’t go away in a few days, see a doctor.
A couple of cites:
I wonder whether arch support matters when you wear cushioned shoes. You don’t get feedback from the surface of the ground, as your feet are walking on the cushion of the sole and insole.
Maybe thin soles with arch support is best.
Arch support matters if your goal is to prevent over-pronation which is an excessive flattening out of the arch. It has nothing to do with the cushion. Cushioned soles are compressible (to varying degrees) which will allow pronation (to varying degrees) and is designed to absorb impact. Certain shoes have an midsole that is comprised of high density foam under the medial longitudinal arch (the inside one; there are three) to reduce pronation and lower density foams to absorb impact forces. You can also achieve pronation control from orthotics which are inserted into the shoe. Some orthotics are rigid preventing most, or all, pronation and some are semi-rigid, which flex to allow some pronation. Some orthotics do nothing to prevent pronation, but provide cushioning to absorb shock. Those are soft orthotics.
Most shoes allow very little feedback from the ground and even the thinnest of shoes prevent many of the receptors in the sole of the foot from triggering and transmitting information to the brain. The best response is barefoot, as far as not only flexibility but proprioception goes.
If you are having specific issues and wondering if you require an orthotic, your best bet is to get evaluated in person. See a professional, whether a podiatrist or orthopedist. If you are an athlete, find one that understands athletic performance issues. Get a second opinion, if you feel you need to.
For whom? There is no one fit for everyone. Everyone has different needs and levels of fitness. Have you been reading the responses here? What exactly do you want to know?
I will give you an anecdote to help with the point of this thread. I suffered from TMJ jaw problems and various body aches until I switched from my normal cushioned arch shoes to flat, wafer thin converse shoes. My foot’s arch seems normal to me.
I am questioning if minimalist shoes, with no arch, are best for the general populatation with a regularfoot curvature?
Also I know this isn’t a running forum, but I have noticed I am a much slower walker and runner since I switched to converse. I have read that barefoot makes your strides shorter and makes you slower.
Consider that most during sprint events the runners are wearing racing flats or spikes which are, by most standards, extremely similar to the new “barefoot” style shoes (and a lot cheaper, by the by). They seem to run quite fast. There’s also the classic example of Abebe Bikila who won the Olympic marathon running barefoot.
I’d agree that during the transition you might run more slowly, but in the long run I doubt it would have any impact.
I’d also suggest that many runners overstride anyway (esp those with extreme heel strikes) and that shortening their stride (no matter what shoes they wear) may be a benefit. That may be why some folks see benefits when shifting to minimalistic footwear: they’re forced to shorten their stride and in doing so run with a more suitable-for-them form. Note my wishy-washy words 
Given the variance in personal mechanics, fitness, habit, etc I don’t believe any single solution is best for any single runner. It sure can get expensive finding what works for you though! As a thought problem, something that strengthens all the muscles of the foot/ankle/leg seems likely to have benefits, just as strengthening all the muscles in any other muscle group has benefits.
My podiatrist told me the same thing twenty-five years ago, when I also had severe plantar fascitis in both feet. The pain was bad enough to send me to a podiatrist in the first place and I ended up having custom orthotics made. It cost me more than I could really afford, but when you are in constant pain, you do what you can to alleviate it. He told me that because I have such high arches, that I should avoid going barefoot and I should never wear shoes without the orthotics for support. He said I would require these for the rest of my life, if I did not want a recurrence.
I wore the orthotics and I got better. I continued to wear them for…oh, maybe a year? But I didn’t particularly like them though I’m not sure why - they were comfortable enough. But I did not like the ‘avoiding barefoot’ restriction. I’ve always been a barefoot all summer kind of gal! Still…maybe that’s what caused the problem in the first place? I didn’t know.
Anyway, I eventually got tired of the routine and abandoned the rule against barefoot as well as the orthotics. In fact, I’m pretty sure that I did not get enough use out of them to merit the expense in the long run.
That was twenty-five years ago and I have not had a recurrence of the plantar fascitis. Indoors I go barefoot all summer and wear thick socks in the winter. I am not a shoe freak, so when I go outdoors, I tend to wear sandals or cheap sneakers.
No arch support. And no pain.
Now, I’m sure my doctor believed what he was telling me. (Although the good buck he was making on custom orthotics probably helped bolster that belief!) But he was wrong.
I’m going to stick with barefoot.
I don’t know whether racing flats or spikes have flat insoles, but aren’t converse similar? They are also much cheaper the minimalist shoes.
As I recall my flats and spikes had the equivalent of thin cardboard for an insert. It wasn’t much. I don’t know what Converse have.
The Converse I’m familiar with have much thicker soles than racing flats (which sometimes seem to be not much more than socks with a rubber sole). Converse do seem to have “zero drop” though, from memory and observation. I haven’t gotten out and measured any. That is, the heel to toe drop is zero; The sole on the heel and toe is the same height. In contrast, most modern running shoes are more like high heels in comparison with a huge build under the heel and much less under the forefoot. A typical heel-toe drop is 10-15mm. Some running sites have begun listing the drop as an attribute so you know what it is.
Zero drop is also quite trendy right now. It’s like minimalist shoes, but with padding. Something that, again, racing flats and converse (and I suspect a good number of shoes) have had for a long time. Modern, new model, zero drop shoes from Nike, Asics, and some smaller brands are of course more expensive than the shoes already available.
Someone use to running in big-heel shoes and shifting to zero-drop shoes is bound to have the same calf/achilles issues as someone shifting to minimalist shoes. The calf isn’t use to that much stretch. I imagine the ladies who wear high heels a lot have run into similar issues.
If you’re worried about the cost, go barefoot. It’s free.
I wouldn’t run in Converse unless I was being chased. They’re too restrictive and you won’t get proper feedback (compare it to typing while wearing ski gloves).
Converse soles are way too hard/stiff to be described as ‘minimalist’, IMO. I can barely flex my foot in them. But I do know people who wear them constantly or run, etc, in them with no issues.
Sounds like you’re adapting your gait to a more natural one that reduces stress and strain on your spine.
IMO, yes with a caveat. Most of the general population in western society has adapted their feet to stiffer shoes which alters natural biomechanics resulting in weakened musculature. When these adapted individuals return to a more natural gait, they are more susceptible to early fatigue as well as overuse and acute injuries due to stress and strain on weakened musculature. This is when you see injuries such as plantar fasciitis and metatarsal fractures crop up.
The gist is you have to adapt incrementally to minimalist shoes as your muscles strengthen and ligaments regain elasticity over time. You can’t just dump your Brooks’ Beasts in the recycle bin one day and run out and do a 10k in a pair of FiveFingers or even Nike Frees (which are not even close to zero-drop). You’d be begging for an injury.
No. Shorter strides and higher cadence is more efficient from an energy expenditure standpoint. The reduction in energy expenditure can translate into speed or endurance or both combined. But, of course, speed and endurance also develops over time. Since you’ve changed your gait, it’s almost as if you’re starting over. You are not conditioned yet to run the way you’re now running, but as your conditioning and form improve, so will your performance. Focus right now on achieving proper form while running and conditioning those muscles and ligaments. Strength training is also beneficial to improving form and technique.
I have a final question, which you may have noticed I have been confused over. Is a minimalist shoe characterised by how low to the ground it is, or how minimal the heel drop? There are shoes with low heel drop but plenty of cushion.
Both. There are several attributes of a minimalist shoe, including low heel-toe differential which allows your foot to remain in a more neutral position as well as lack of cushion which allows for better feedback. There are several other attributes to consider as well: flexible, minimal toe spring, lightweight, etc.
However, there’s clearly a spectrum in minimalist shoes. While two shoes may be referred to as minimalist shoes, they may share the attributes of a minimalist shoe to varying degrees. For example, I own both Vibram FiveFingers and Brooks Green Silence trainers. While both can be considered minimalist, they produce a noticeably different running experience. The heel-toe differential between the two is significant: 8mm IIRC. and the Brooks shoe reduces feedback to practically nothing. In practice, I find the Brooks shoe encourages me to lengthen my stride, which is not what I’m looking to do. I like both, but I prefer to run in the FiveFingers.
Here’s a relevant article on the subject.
It depends on what the marketing department thinks. Barefoot/Minimal is trendy now, and thus profitable.
Usually the things like Vibram Five Fingers come to mind - not much more than a sole. It’s just enough to protect your foot from little things (or not quite enough depending on who you ask). Nike Free’s, which appear to have quite a chunky sole to me, are also marketed as having a “barefoot style”. I often seen it referred to as a transition minimalist shoe.
Check out the Hoka shoes, by the by, as the complete antithesis to minimal, at least as far as the sole goes. They look like … cartoon shoes.