The foot's arches: myth vs. fact: do arch inserts play the best supporting role?

by William A. Rossi

Abstract: Extensive exposure to propaganda has made Americans overconcerned about the need for arch supports. Americans annually pay an estimated $2 billion for arch supports of one kind or another, but people who go shoeless tend to have strong, healthy arches. The footwear industry should leave arches alone and concentrate instead on making shoes that fit and perform well and look good.

COPYRIGHT 1996 Fairchild Publications Inc.

Some of you may find this short article controversial. But then, if two people consistently agree, one becomes unnecessary. Divergent views are needed to sustain a dialogue.

The footwear industry, along with the doctors, appears to be on a crusading mission to lift the whole nation by its arches. Americans have become so obsessed with "supporting" their arches that they've forgotten what it feels like to stand on their own natural two feet.

Except for fashion footwear, there's hardly a shoe that isn't made with some kind of "support" feature built in. And you can hardly buy a pair of shoes in a store without the salesperson mentioning that the shoe provides "good support" for the arch or foot.

Generations of propaganda exposure have given Americans an arch complex. To go through life without being arch-supported, infancy to advanced age, is the equivalent of foot care neglect.

But first, lets sift the myths from the facts about the foot's arches. The foot has four arches: the main long one along the inner border; a corresponding but lower one along the outer border; the metatarsal arch under the ball and a small invisible one called the transverse arch running sideways behind the instep.

Only two of them—the long inner one and the transverse arch—are "true" arches in that they remain arched on weightbearing, whereas the other two don't. All, however, serve the same basic function of absorbing shock and providing spring for taking a step.

Now, considering that Americans spend an estimated $2 billion a year to be arch-supported in one form or another—medically prescribed orthotics, over-the-counter and mail order arch supports, various arch and other support features in footwear, medical arch therapy, etc.—the following fact may be startling:

Amazingly little is known about those four arches. There are no established parameters for the arches; no defined norm for an arch, no standards for what a high, medium or low arch is.

Everyone speaks of "fallen" arches. Yet it's not known whether such a condition actually exists. There are some people with defective flat feet, but there is neither a known cause nor a cure. And no arch support in any form can prevent, raise or restore a defectively depressed arch.

We also commonly speak of weak arches. But here again, there's no clear definition of what's meant by it. After all, if we don't know what the norm is, how can we know what the abnormal is?

How ironic. We pamper the arches while knowing almost nothing about them. The marketplace is hip deep with products and services offering a solution to the mysteries of the arches.

But, you insist, the foot obviously needs support to prevent weakening or breakdown of the arches because we stand and walk much of the time on hard ground surfaces.

Include that among the myths. Hundreds of millions of people of the world habitually go shoeless. Most of their standing, walking and working is on hard ground surfaces. Yet, as surveys show, they have strong, healthy, trouble-free feet and arches.

Some years ago a study was done on the feet of several hundred rickshaw men in Shanghai. The men trotted barefoot an average of 20 miles a day over cobblestone and paved streets, year after year. Rarely a foot or arch problem.

Many years ago all infants' and children's shoes were hi-tops to "support" the ankle and instep. The same idea has long prevailed in work and outdoor boots. The corseting presumably prevents weak ankles. But when the kids finally switched to low cuts, no mass breakdown of ankles occurred. Another myth faded into the shadows.

Now, let's come to the nitty-gritty at hand here: the "support" role of the shoe.

Shoe people contend that the public wants and expects some kind of support in its footwear. Hence, it's the industry's responsibility to serve that demand.

No argument with that. If you create a cash cow you're entitled to milking rights. That's exactly what the industry has done. It started with Dr. Scholl back in the early 1920s and was followed by the corrective shoe mania of the 1930s and 1940s. The momentum is still with us.

So what's wrong with that? Nothing, except this. The industry should recognize and separate myth from fact, illusion from reality. The belief that "support" is a necessary feature of the shoe is myth and illusion.

We are making the foot so unnecessarily support-dependent that it's becoming a permanent welfare case, infancy to grave. We are denying the foot its natural right and desire to function free of artificial support.

The fact and reality is this: the less a shoe does to the foot the more it does for the foot. The exception, of course, is a foot in serious trouble.

The foot is already designed with its own marvelous support system via its muscles and tendons, ligaments and joints, fascia and arches. To assume that somewhere nature went wrong and needs an assist from our shoes via a variety of "support" devices, is the ultimate presumption.

If shoe people want to continue cashing in on the illusion of arch support, ankle support, heel support, etc., fine. But at least recognize it for what it actually is: nine parts huff, puff and bluff, one part substance.

It's rumored that when Dr. Scholl first visited the Coliseum in Rome, he asked permission of the officials to raise the arches. The footwear industry seems to have acquired the same kind of missionary zeal about arch-supporting the whole world.

It should concentrate on its primary mission: making and selling shoes that fit well, feel well perform well, look good—and allow the foot to do its work with natural efficiency and the least interference.