The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
they looked at static Footprints and how Footwear affected the development of their medial Arch which I thought that's a pretty large cohort for a study right so what they found is by the age of 13 these are Kids 4 to 13 by the age of 13 those who did not wear shoes less than three of them presented with what they considered flat feet the ones that wore shoes 9% were considered having flat feet and sorry 3% or three in total 3% okay 3% right
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the ones that wore shoes they also noticed the type of shoe so the ones that wore closed toe box shoes had a more of a prevalence than even the kids that wore sandals
by the age of 13 those who did not wear shoes less than three of them presented with what they considered flat feet the ones that wore shoes 9% were considered having flat feet