I overpronate moderately and I don’t wear shoes in the house but I don’t spend much time on my feet, either.
If I need to stand for a significant time, I put on shoes as I’m more stable and my bad leg is better supported.
I’d never heard of pronation before this thread, so thanks for the education. I’ve only ever heard it called fallen arches or flat feet when it’s really bad. Anyway, FTR I spend as much time as possible barefoot or wearing minimal footwear and don’t seem to have any noticeable pronation.
I think this one is wrong. I believe I’ve heard that humans evolved to be long distance runners, running down prey.
I have a history of overpronating. I’ve always had running shoes with lots of support. I recently bought a pair of Five Fingers, but so far I haven’t run in them, just walked. It’ll be interesting to see if I can run in them comfortably without injury, but I intend to take it slow to start with and only run on soft surfaces.
Over grass and ground not concrete and asphalt. Also distance running in hunting was at a generally slow pace with the aim of wearing down the prey, not racing all out for a specific distance.
Again, I’m not a runner, so my data point may be of limited use. But I have always been overpronated while walking (it runs in my family, so my brother and all of my cousins on my father’s side are too, up to and including leg braces for one during childhood). I don’t have flat feet. I go barefoot at any opportunity, and only wear slippers inside in the dead of winter when feeling especially cold.
I probably should have qualified that statement I originally made RE: pros of shoes more. I happen to agree with you, that humans evolved to be able to run long distances. However, one of the arguments I hear from a lot of people is that running a marathon is bad for you because the distance is so great. Many times, they point to fact that the guy who ran to Marathon in ancient times died (‘He died? Must have been because he ran so far!’) upon delivering news. They also point to the idea that the marathon is so long, that the body cannabilizes itself and eats away at its own muscle during the 26 miles - so it must be bad. This is just a case of not knowing the full story of the physiological processes involved.
I’ve even had someone tell me that marathons leech calcium from your bones (that person must not have been aware of studies showing that the bones become more dense with training). :dubious:
In any case, the end result of what I hear is usually the same - humans absolutely need to have artificially created feet in order to endure these longer distances. (this is separate from the argument/discussion on whether shoes are necessary because of the difference in the surfaces involved).
Re: your question.
I stay barefoot most of the time - easy to do in the South unless it is the dead of summer and the ground is too hot, but you get used to it over time anyway. In fact, I only put on shoes when I have to because it is socially demanded. I’ve been known to “forget” shoes. (Yes, I realize I am not helping the stereotype here). I am not the norm. My feet are flat flat flat. They don’t turn or anything, just flat.
First of all, the human body didn’t evolve to do anything. If you wind up with something that does well on grass and soft ground, use it there. The human body is just what it is and whatever we do with it is the consequences of how it wound up at this place and time.
It isn’t meant for anything. A consequence of the human brain is that it can work with the rest of the body and create tools, experiment, draw conclusions.
We aren’t ‘designed’ or ‘meant’ to run on anything and/or for any distance.
Nitpick much?
Of course the human body didn’t evolve at anything like a conscious level to do anything. It’s not like it wakes up one day and says ‘ok, I’m going to evolve to do X’ or ‘I’m going to get good at Y’.
When we say the human body is designed for something, or evolved to do something, we are just saying what you just mentioned in a more succinct manner. We are thinking of evolution as the process that got us from point A (amoebas in a primordial amino acid soup) to point B (modern humans with all of our triumphs and follies).
Okay, if you want to run on bare feet, as long as you know your feet weren’t designed to do anything, then you are good to go. Have at it!
I love the idea, but I hear people justify things with notions that “Hey, our feet are designed to hunt woolly mammoths in the cold, so we don’t need any boots!”
I might be stretching it, but not that far, to make a point.
Always makes me wonder, ''Well… if my feet are ‘designed’ to do something from thousands of years earlier, then my ancestors had feet that were thousands of years out of date and better suited to something else from much earlier, too!"
It’s easier to just accept that we have feet and they come with some sort of potential. Good luck finding out yours!
That starts to border on evolution vs intelligent design - which is a sure-fire way to spice up a thread 
But I do get what you mean.
On a similar vein - it does get annoying when everything gets attributed to evolving because of this or that reason, usually having to do with an advantage it gave early humans.
Your body prone to storing fat? It’s because early humans went through feast/famine cycles.
You have a lot of body hair? It’s because early humans had no environmental controls (heated buildings)
You dont have a tail like many mammals? It’s because early humans didn’t need them, and so they went by the wayside.
Etc, etc.
Early man surely was a hotbed of traits once possessed that suddenly went by the wayside!
Some things just are simply because it wasn’t a drastic enough change to cause extinction of the mutation. Not everything has to be attributed to increased survival.
Right, so use your feet and see what works. Some people have tough skin; some people have good bones structure, etc. Some people will run forever in any shoes, and some people will find high-tech shoes painful.
There are so many variables, it is just listening to your feet that matters.
But I think you will agree, if you want to be running miles when you are 50, it has little or nothing to do with our ancestors, who merely had to survive long enough to reproduce. Keeping your feet happy and healthy into old age is very likely to require some sort of special footwear, or footcare, that our ancestors didn’t have access to.
So, bare feet might give you tremendous results until you are 28 years old. They might hold up until 40. Who knows? But no one needs to get cornered into the 'feet were designed to do x" thinking. Anyone who buys into that must toss their argument out the window, because we could just counter: “Well, then they were designed to last about 20-25 years, at most!”
Listen to the feet, shins, calves, etc. Pain versus discomfort and all that.
This was my experience the one time I ran a fair distance barefoot. I was mostly on blacktop, over about 3-4 miles I had no problems other than adjusting my stride from my more typical heel-striking style. I don’t know how fast I was going for certain, as I was running that day out of urgent necessity rather than for training. (If I’d know I’d end up running halfway to the next town, I’d have stopped to put on shoes …) But I know I was doing a pretty solid clip, 'cause I ran down the dog I was chasing. (The little SOBs can outrun us in the sprint, but we can beat them over a long distance, it turns out. Around the third mile, the expression on his face each time he looked over his shoulder–“Jesus, are you still right behind me?!”–was just priceless.)
Based on what logic?
This is a strangely persistent myth. It’s not like people were living to 20 years old and then having their bodies disintegrate because it was just so shabbily built. We’re not salmon. Mostly people died of starvation and exposure and unfortunate accidents and so forth, but those who didn’t die from bad luck tended to be really healthy. They certainly weren’t dying slow deaths of diabetes or heart disease or foot falling apart disease.