"Barefoot education" is hotly debated
Differences in several physical aspects between children who walk barefoot and those who do not
I believe that many parents when they see their children walking barefoot are always worried that they will get sick, after all, Chinese medicine says that cold starts from the feet and some parents are also worried about germs, so there are fewer opportunities for children to walk barefoot and play. However, in Japanese schools, they create special conditions for children to walk barefoot, for example, kindergartens will carry out "barefoot education", by setting up sand or wooden floors for children to walk barefoot, what are the benefits of doing so?
What are the benefits of "barefoot education"?
In some kindergartens, elementary and middle schools in Japan, groups of students can be seen walking or playing in the sand or on the playground with their bare feet under the guidance of teachers. Local educators believe that releasing the feet in the natural sunlight and air and walking/playing uninhibited can promote blood circulation in the feet and enhance the metabolism of the body, which has the effect of enhancing appetite and improving resistance to disease and cold.
So what is the difference between children who walk barefoot and those who don't? (What are the benefits of walking barefoot)
1、Promote intellectual development
The human foot brings together numerous meridians and acupuncture points, walking barefoot can massage and stimulate these parts, and children can get different feelings according to different ground temperatures, pressure, bump, etc., which is good for promoting brain development and enhancing intelligence.
2, improve memory
A survey found that walking barefoot than walking in shoes can significantly improve memory, this is because when people walk barefoot, the brain avoids obstacles have been in a state of tension, and high concentration, to protect the feet from injury, which can stimulate the memory center of the brain.
3, enhance physical fitness
According to a survey found that in Japan, "barefoot education" after about 80% of the children's physical fitness significantly enhanced. This is because young children's thermoregulatory center has not yet been perfect, the soles of the feet can heat regulation of body temperature, and barefoot walking can stimulate the palms of the feet, promote blood circulation, and enhance metabolism, so that the immune system is enhanced, reducing the probability of illness, which is perhaps the original purpose of the implementation of "barefoot education" in Japan.
4、Prevent flat feet
Japanese research shows that walking barefoot for a long time can reduce the occurrence of flat feet in young children. Because barefoot can make the child get the unevenness of the road changes brought about by the physical feeling, increase the friction between the skin of the foot and the ground, and enhance muscle strength, not only can make walking more stable, but also prevent children from shoe constraints and lead to flat feet and another abnormal foot shape.
5、Relieve mental stress
Walking barefoot on a paved pavement with cobblestones can effectively relieve stress because at this time the nerves of the whole body will be somewhat relaxed, similar to giving the soles of the feet a massage.
Baby walking barefoot when the precautions
1, do not expose the baby's little feet to the air for a long time, when the outdoor temperature is low, do not try to walk barefoot to avoid illness.
2, when the baby walks barefoot, parents must check the safety of the road, to avoid walking by small stones, glass slag, screws, and other dangerous objects scratch.
3, if it is walking barefoot on a smooth floor, make sure there are no excess water stains or sticky slippery liquid on it to avoid falls and bruises.
4, the length of barefoot walking should be properly controlled, not too long, generally about a quarter of an hour to avoid wear and tear on the sole, causing pain.
5, if the baby's feet have wounds, do not walk barefoot, or bacteria, dust is likely to take advantage of the opportunity to invade the body, causing infection, abscesses, and other problems.
About the Creator
Trump Slams UK Deal to Hand Over Chagos Islands After Previously Backing It
If you thought politics couldn’t surprise you anymore, Donald Trump just proved otherwise. In a dramatic U-turn, the former U.S. president criticized the United Kingdom’s decision to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius—a deal he had previously backed. What was once considered a solution to a decades-long dispute has now become a hot topic, sparking debates about strategy, diplomacy, and international trust.
By Muhammad Hassanabout 23 hours ago in Earth
Inside Trump's $11 Billion Health Plan to Replace “Neo-Colonial” USAID
In the landscape of global health aid, few proposals have stirred as much debate as former President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to restructure American assistance abroad. Dubbed an $11 billion health initiative aimed at replacing USAID’s current framework, the plan seeks to pivot away from what Trump and his allies have criticized as the “neo-colonial” approach of U.S. foreign aid. While the plan promises greater efficiency and impact, experts are split on whether it is a practical solution or a politically driven gamble. Trump’s Critique of USAID The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a central pillar of American foreign assistance, distributing billions in aid annually to address health crises, food insecurity, and development challenges worldwide. However, Trump’s administration and its supporters have often described USAID’s approach as bureaucratic, inefficient, and reflective of a “neo-colonial” mindset. In public statements, Trump argued that the U.S. was spending taxpayer dollars on programs that benefited foreign governments or contractors more than the intended local communities. Critics of the plan say that while USAID has flaws—as any large bureaucracy does—its extensive networks and decades of experience provide an unmatched capacity to deliver aid efficiently and safely. The Core of the $11 Billion Proposal At the heart of Trump’s proposal is an $11 billion fund designed to consolidate, modernize, and streamline U.S. health aid. Unlike the traditional USAID model, which relies heavily on long-term partnerships with governments and NGOs, the new plan emphasizes: Direct Impact Funding: Allocating resources to frontline health workers and local initiatives rather than intermediaries. Data-Driven Investments: Using real-time health data to target outbreaks and crises more efficiently. Private Sector Partnerships: Leveraging U.S. pharmaceutical companies, tech firms, and healthcare startups to deliver vaccines, treatments, and medical infrastructure. Shorter Program Cycles: Moving away from multi-year funding commitments in favor of more flexible, results-oriented programs. Proponents argue that this approach could reduce bureaucratic overhead and ensure U.S. aid reaches communities faster. By “cutting out the middlemen,” Trump supporters claim, America can avoid the pitfalls of slow-moving aid programs that sometimes fail to adapt to crises. Reactions from the Global Health Community Global health experts, however, have expressed concern about both the logistics and philosophy of the plan. Dr. Melissa Ortega, a senior researcher at the Global Health Policy Institute, explained, “The idea of bypassing established structures like USAID may sound appealing on paper, but in practice, it risks undermining decades of institutional knowledge. Health systems are complex, and short-term projects cannot replace long-term capacity building.” Some critics have also questioned the characterization of USAID as “neo-colonial.” While U.S. foreign aid has historically been tied to geopolitical interests, many programs today are designed collaboratively with recipient countries and local organizations. Reducing oversight could unintentionally increase the risk of misuse, corruption, or health inequities. On the other hand, supporters of Trump’s plan point to examples of inefficiency in USAID programs, citing cases where aid was delayed or mismanaged. By introducing more direct funding models, they argue, U.S. taxpayer dollars could achieve a higher “return on health outcomes.” Political Implications Trump’s health aid overhaul proposal is not just about international development—it is also deeply political. Framing USAID as a “neo-colonial” institution resonates with a populist narrative that America should prioritize its own citizens and assert greater control over how taxpayer money is spent abroad. Domestically, the $11 billion plan faces scrutiny from Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether dismantling USAID’s systems could destabilize ongoing health programs in countries where the U.S. has long-term commitments. The potential impact on global health security—including the fight against pandemics like COVID-19—adds another layer of concern. Internationally, U.S. allies and partner nations are watching closely. Sudden shifts in aid delivery could disrupt health programs in low- and middle-income countries, many of which rely on predictable funding cycles to maintain vaccination campaigns, maternal health services, and disease surveillance. Possible Benefits and Risks If executed carefully, the Trump-backed model could bring several benefits: Faster Response Times: Direct funding could accelerate delivery of vaccines, treatments, and emergency support. Innovation Boost: By partnering with private sector companies, the plan could accelerate development of new health technologies. Accountability: With performance-based metrics, the plan may better measure the impact of U.S. aid. However, the risks are equally significant: Disruption of Existing Programs: Abrupt changes could destabilize ongoing health projects. Loss of Expertise: USAID’s decades of experience in navigating local governance, supply chains, and community engagement may be hard to replace. Geopolitical Fallout: Allies accustomed to collaborating with USAID might see the move as destabilizing, reducing cooperation on global health initiatives. Looking Ahead As Trump and his allies continue to advocate for this $11 billion overhaul, the debate over the future of U.S. health aid is intensifying. Proponents view it as a necessary modernization of an outdated system, while critics fear it could undercut decades of carefully built infrastructure and global partnerships. Ultimately, the success of this plan will hinge on its ability to balance efficiency with stability, innovation with oversight, and political objectives with humanitarian needs. For now, the proposal remains controversial, representing a dramatic departure from traditional approaches to U.S. foreign aid. Whether it will reshape global health for the better—or simply create more uncertainty—remains to be seen. In the end, the Trump health plan is as much about ideology as it is about dollars. It challenges the conventional wisdom of international development and asks whether a more streamlined, results-focused approach can truly replace a system built over decades. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher: the future of U.S. global health aid—and the lives it touches—hangs in the balance.
By Muhammad Hassan7 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.