What are the disadvantages, apart from "massive callouses"?
I can't edit my comment anymore, but my dad loves to run barefoot. I mentioned callouses as an excuse to link to a blog post where he shows off his Fred Flintstone feet.
As to the disadvantages... what if you're fighting Hans Gruber and he shoots a bunch of glass windows?
I think being barefoot all the time is very different from just running barefoot. A barefoot life is rather unsanitary and unsafe (there are lots of dirty pointy things on the ground). Shoes offer protection from cold, heat, physical trauma, sunburn, moisture, and social embarrassment. They also provide better traction on many surfaces.
I'm too lazy to go searching for sources that justify my claim, but you don't have to look far to find some weaker evidence. Look at people who have the muscular strength but not the structural support necessary to walk: they use braces to help restrict motion or devices to reduce weight on their joints (walkers, crutches). Look at anatomy: ligaments don't thicken along with one's waistline. Even if they did, they wouldn't keep up with the square-cube law.
I guess a more concrete example would be this: If you had to wear a weighted vest while running, would you rather be barefoot or wearing supportive shoes? If the vest is heavy enough, your calves won't support you and you'll be forced to heel-strike. At that point, a supportive and cushioning shoe would be less stressful than barefoot running. That's basically what people with weak calves or large guts experience. And most people in that situation aren't going to train enough to get to the point where barefoot running is better for them.
Perhaps the following formulation would be appropriate: if you are not in shape to run, you are not in shape to run barefoot. But I do not think anyone has argued otherwise.
I had an inkling hygienic concerns might be partly underlying your opposition. Even without addressing whether the issue is really of much concern, Feelmax, Vibram and others make shoes that provide protection while allowing for "barefooting." Against the elements? This winter (down to -22ºC) I have been wearing a traditional moccasin with a 4mm flat rubber sole without any problems.
> I'm too lazy to go searching for sources that justify my claim, but you don't have to look far to find some weaker evidence. Look at people who have the muscular strength but not the structural support necessary to walk: they use braces to help restrict motion...
Support braces are an entirely different matter. I would contend that people who are reliant on mechanical contraptions for moving are as a group not the prime audience when talking about running of any kind.
> I guess a more concrete example would be this: If you had to wear a weighted vest while running, would you rather be barefoot or wearing supportive shoes?
I would prefer toe-stepping.
> If the vest is heavy enough, your calves won't support you and you'll be forced to heel-strike. At that point, a supportive and cushioning shoe would be less stressful than barefoot running.
I am not sure this is true at all. Yes, it is really hard to toe-step if you lack the muscle to support yourself, even though exercise will eventually strengthen you enough, but to go from that to asserting that heel-stepping is therefore better is a stretch. I would imagine that weight sufficient to force me on my heels would be highly destructive on joints (hence all such problems obese people face.) If you consider such weight pushed down on an unstable surface - which is what a cushioned shoe is - without the necessary ligament- or muscular control to maintain posture, the leg is virtually guaranteed to be constantly misaligned.
I can't edit my comment anymore, but my dad loves to run barefoot. I mentioned callouses as an excuse to link to a blog post where he shows off his Fred Flintstone feet.
As to the disadvantages... what if you're fighting Hans Gruber and he shoots a bunch of glass windows?
I think being barefoot all the time is very different from just running barefoot. A barefoot life is rather unsanitary and unsafe (there are lots of dirty pointy things on the ground). Shoes offer protection from cold, heat, physical trauma, sunburn, moisture, and social embarrassment. They also provide better traction on many surfaces.
I'm too lazy to go searching for sources that justify my claim, but you don't have to look far to find some weaker evidence. Look at people who have the muscular strength but not the structural support necessary to walk: they use braces to help restrict motion or devices to reduce weight on their joints (walkers, crutches). Look at anatomy: ligaments don't thicken along with one's waistline. Even if they did, they wouldn't keep up with the square-cube law.
I guess a more concrete example would be this: If you had to wear a weighted vest while running, would you rather be barefoot or wearing supportive shoes? If the vest is heavy enough, your calves won't support you and you'll be forced to heel-strike. At that point, a supportive and cushioning shoe would be less stressful than barefoot running. That's basically what people with weak calves or large guts experience. And most people in that situation aren't going to train enough to get to the point where barefoot running is better for them.