> Having barefoot connection with soil is definitely good for you
Citation needed
Citation needed
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.