Friday, October 8, 2010

Why You Shouldn't Wear Crocs

I looked long and hard at Crocs.  My daughters love them and they're light.  Ultimately I decided they're too supportive.  One daughter went without them this summer, and the other wore them.  The Croc-less daughter's feet are strong and tough after a summer spent barefoot.  The Croc-ed daughters feet are weak, narrow, and soft.  She used to love to run, until she started wearing Crocs all the time. We threw out the Crocs a week ago.  Crocs are crack for your feet.  They feel great, and they make them weak.

Today I find this article:

"Not Such A Croc: Might a Fad Shoe's Health Claims Stand?"

"You've tried to ignore them, but they've spread like vermin. Crocs are everywhere. That's often the way with shoe crazes -- think Birkenstocks, Earth shoes, Dr. Scholl's. Crocs wearers are practically evangelical about the shoes' supposed comfort, but really, how can you trust people who go out in public wearing goofy rubbery clogs with vent holes in them? Might as well ascribe health benefits to chopped-off garden galoshes or jelly shoes.

"Time to call in the foot experts and expose the things for the frauds they are. Except -- surprise -- that turns out to be more difficult than you might imagine.

"Crocs, made of a resin foam called Croslite and listing for $29.99, are featured prominently on the Web site of the Bethesda-based American Podiatric Medical Association ... as one healthy alternative to flip-flops; two Crocs models -- both in the Crocs Rx line, designed for people with diabetes and others with circulatory and foot ailments -- recently have been awarded the APMA Seal of Acceptance. The APMA takes special note of the fact that Croslite 'warms and softens with body heat and molds to the users' feet, while remaining extremely lightweight.'

"Harold Glickman, chief of podiatric surgery at Sibley Memorial Hospital, praises Crocs for their ample toe room, deep and supportive heel cup and secure rear strap. Their loose fit, he said, means no pressure points or rubbing spots, and their nonporous material gives them antibacterial properties that makes them 'a huge asset to those susceptible to infection -- those with diabetic ulcerations, wounds or poor circulation.'

"Glickman, who isn't among the physicians who have partnered with the makers of Crocs to stock the shoes in their offices, began recommending them to patients after he began wearing them himself. 'I found them myself to be so comfortable, a bell went off.' Now he suggests them to people with plantar fasciitis, a painful stretching of the tissue along the bottom of the foot, and to those undergoing bunionectomies or other foot surgery. 'The patient can go right into them post-operatively, bandage and all.'"

Here's a rule of thumb for you: if conventional podiatrists approve of a shoe, it's bad for your feet.

VivoBarefoot's new shoe the Ultra, on the other hand, is the anti-Croc.  I can't wait for it.


  1. great find! ugh. barf on crocs.

  2. One thing I will give as a positive for Crocs though, is the shape. They are one of the *very* few shoes out there that are actually properly shaped for a foot (most of their shoes, anyway), with an anatomically correct asymmetric design that doesn't unnaturally squish toes.

    There's a lot about them that aren't great (too stiff, too much padding, heel drop, etc), but I'd honestly still put them up as a better choice than most other shoes I see people wearing (including every pair of high heels on a girl).

  3. They are naturally shaped in that they allow your toes to spread, but they also "cradle" your foot, so that it doesn't want to. To judge by my daughters' feet, anyway.