How do you justify spending $500+ on shoes?

[AmericanGent]

...deleted

 

[dbhdnhdbh]

Wow! This thread has become really interesting. At the risk of getting back to something less fascinating that religious doctrine, a few responses to things that came up while I was away.

Used shoes. There was a poster on AAAC, a podiatrist, who shared the concerns about used shoes. But he was very clear that this was NOT because of a risk of infection. He thought that it was quite simple to disinfect shoes. He seemed to be most worried about crease patterns not fitting the new wearer's feet. The footbed was also mentioned, but seemed less a concern. For me, I often wear inserts so the molding of the footbed is not so critical, but in some of my used shoes the footbed fits my feet just wonderfully.

I considered the "ick" factor briefly. But think of this. If you are admitted to the hospital they will put you in a bed. You will get nice, clean, USED sheets. The person who used those sheets before may have had any of a number of horrible diseases. The sheets get cleaned and reused. If I were a diabetic I might worry about foot infections from shoes. But it is not that difficult to disinfect shoes. Antifungal sprays and powders work. So does ozone treatment and UV. Not that I had needed to resort to them.

Why would someone come to the church of SF if a nonbeliever? Perhaps that takes too narrow a view of it. Rather than think of it as following, or not, Catholic orthodoxy, how about viewing it far more broadly as "Christianity, in all its various manifestations" or "religion" or "ethics and spirituality"? Not everyone who finds such topics interesting, and might read a site devoted to such discussions, will agree with any particular set of views. I read SF because it is interesting. I enjoy knowing more about things than I did before. Since I wear clothes, knowing how they are made, why they are made that way, and the choices implied, is interesting. Shoes, in particular I find interesting. Probably because there are some quality issues that will impact comfort. An ill fitting suit might look bad, but it will not be painful.

There is a difference between being interested in clothing and being willing to spend a lot of money on clothes. To a large extent, more knowledge has made it possible for me to determine what is valuable to me. It turns out that little of what makes clothes expensive is valuable to me. I don't care about brands. I don't care that others will recognize that I am dressed the way some style icon recommends, or that my outfit resembles that worn by some celebrity. Although I understand why people say that a canvased jacket is better than fused, I don't care about the distinction. I have some of both, acquired before I had any idea how jackets were made, and I wear them interchangeably. But I still enjoy reading the tailor's fit and feedback threads.

Part of the reason I don't worry as much about my appearance as I gather many on SF may is that I recognize that I am a pretty average looking middle aged man. There are no clothes that could be made, at any price, that would make me look like, who should I say- Brad Pitt? LeBron James? I am never going to be mistaken for either guy. I have learned to live with this fact.

It is a big wide wonderful world out there, full of people with a variety of values and opinions. As far as I know, no one has ever been killed by someone NOT buying fancy clothes. No children starving, no puppies harmed. Collecting and wearing expensive shoes is one hobby that some share and some do not. Being cheap and worrying about the environmental impact of consumption is another. I am the cheap type. Clothes are interesting, but I would rather put my money in savings.

 

[DWFII]

If you have already made up your mind about something that you yourself don't have any experience with, nothing anyone can say will change it.

The podiatrist on AAAC notwithstanding, this subject has raised its head before. Most of the following was part of a discussion of the possible consequences of wearing rubber soled shoes. Nevertheless the point, as it applies to this discussion, is both that the foot infections have been on the rise for decades and that they are fairly common in the general population as well as the injunction (strongly emphasized below and supported bu the medical establishment) to avoid old shoes.

If foot infections are on the rise and have been as is suggested in the medical literature, then your chances of contracting these diseases rise exponentially if you purchase and wear used shoes.

From http://emedicine.medscape.com
Quote:

Tinea pedis is the term used for a dermatophyte infection of the soles of the feet and the interdigital spaces. Tinea pedis is most commonly caused by Trichophyton rubrum, a dermatophyte initially endemic only to a small region of Southeast Asia and in parts of Africa and Australia. Interestingly, tinea pedis was not noted in these areas then, possibly because these populations did not wear occlusive footwear. The colonization of the T rubrum –endemic regions by European nations helped to spread the fungus throughout Europe. Wars with accompanying mass movements of troops and refugees, the general increase in available means of travel, and the rise in the use of occlusive footwear have all combined to make T rubrum the world's most prevalent dermatophyte.

Now what does occlusive mean? Well...slight divergence for clarity:

Quote from the Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing

Farlex 2012:

oc·clude (ŏ-klūd')
1. To close, plug, obstruct, or bring together.
2. To enclose, as in an occluded virus.

Granted all footwear is to some degree ocullsive but footwear that cannot breathe, that prevents the possibility of breathing in some degree is going to be more occlusive than footwear that is constructed of materials and with techniques that deliberately seeks, as much as possible, to minimize occlusion.
Quote:

The first reported case of tinea pedis in the United States was noted in Birmingham, Alabama, in the 1920s. World War I troops returning from battle may have transported T rubrum to the United States

.

Obviously these fellows and their parents and grandparents had been wearing leather shoes for some centuries without significant problems. The difference? Rubber and other synthetics were not in common usage in the footwear industry prior to the turn of the 20th century.

What causes fungal foot infections?

Quote:

A hot, humid, tropical environment (remember my reference to "jungle environment?) and prolonged use of occlusive footwear, with the resulting complications of hyperhidrosis and maceration, are risk factors for all types of tinea pedis. Certain activities, such as swimming and communal bathing, may also increase the risk of infection.

As I stated quite clearly for those who were still awake, such problems as I outlined are not going to afflict everyone. I think I used the words"genetic make-up"...

Quote:

Tinea pedis is more common in some families, and certain people may have a genetic predisposition to the infection. A defect in cell-mediated immunity may predispose some individuals to develop tinea pedis, but this is not certain.

How do you treat or get rid of fungal foot infections?
Quote:

Occlusive footwear promotes infection by creating warm, humid, macerating environments where dermatophytes thrive. Therefore, patients should try to minimize foot moisture by limiting the use of occlusive footwear and should discard shoes that may be contributing to recurrence of the infection.

[COLOR=FF0000]Oldshoes are often sources of reinfection and should be disposed of or treated with antifungal powders.[/COLOR]

Patients should be cautioned to wear protective footwear at communal pools and baths and should attempt to keep their feet dry by limiting occlusive footwear. When occlusive footwear is worn, wearing cotton socks and adding a drying powder with antifungal action in the shoes may be helpful.

All the above quotes are from the same source (http://emedicine.medscape.com/) with the exception of the definition provided for the word "occlude"

This next quote is from the book Fungal Disease in Britain and the United States1850-2000:Mycoses and Modernity(Science, Technology and Medicine in Modern History.

Quote:

The grand narrative of twentieth-century medicine is the conquering of acute infectious diseases and the rise in chronic, degenerative diseases. The history of fungal infections does not fit this picture; indeed, it runs against it - this book charts the path of fungal infections from the mid nineteenth century to the dawn of the twenty-first century, both in Britain and the United States. It examines how fungal infections became more prevalent and serious over the century, a rise that was linked to the increased incidence of chronic diseases and to social, technological and medical 'progress'. In 1900, conditions such as ringworm, athlete's foot and thrush were minor, external and mostly chronic conditions – irritating, but mostly self-limiting. In the subsequent decades, these infections remained very common, but were better controlled by antifungal drugs. However, by the year 2000 doctors were faced by a growing number of serious and life-threatening fungal infections, such as invasive aspergillosis and systemic candidiasis. These infections principally affect patients who have benefited from medical advances, such as antibiotic treatment and transplantation, and those with immuno-compromised conditions.

Significantly rubber outsoles didn't really gain any market share until well into the 20th century when by-products of the petro-chemical industry became available. Coincidence? Perhaps, but reasonably, logically, objectively, a contributing factor.

Additional tidbits I found which support my thesis::

Quote:

The organisms that cause athlete's foot thrive in damp, close environments created by thick, tight shoes that can pinch the toes together and create warm, moist areas in between. Damp socks increase the risk. The infection isn't found as often in areas of the world where shoes aren't worn. Warm, humid settings that promote heavy sweating favor its spread.Dr. Eddy's Clinic Integrated Medicine - Web Journal

Quote:

However, it is believed that fungal infections are the result of our modern society, bearing in mind that during the 19th century, this was a very rare condition and there were no specific toenail fungus cure

. http://nail-fungus.co.uk/category/remediestreatments/

People can do as they want...there is no shoe police. Ignore good advice, well researched data, and common-sense...no skin off of anyone's teeth.

But a word to the wise...if any are to be found with in hearing or reading distance:

When I was first in this business (and didn't know any better), I "inherited" a beautiful, almost new pair of moccasins by virtue of them being left for repair and never picked up. They were just my size, they fit me perfectly and I was poor as a church mouse. They were on of only a few pair of shoes that I have ever had in my adult life that I didn't make....and the only pair that weren't brand new.

Despite having gone through the jungles of SE Asia with no ill effects, within a year of "adopting" those moccasins, I developed a toenail infection. At one point in time it threatened to spread to all my toe nails and even the nails of my hands. I spent months and months on strong anti-fungals...at some risk to my liver...before it went into remission. I have never gotten rid of it entirely, however. The original toenail is still infected. That's probably 35 years ago now.

I've said my piece on this...I do not wish you ill but somewhere, sometime, karma inevitably catches up with those who choose to think themselves immune.

Or to paraphrase Orr in Joseph Heller's Catch 22 "How can you see you've got flies in your eyes if you've got flies in your eyes?"

 

[Claghorn]

I'm all for leather soles, though I'll stick with Dainite for snow, ice, and rain. I'm pretty sure the occlusive footwear referred to in the literature you cited refers to stuff like rubber work boots which are made entirely out of synthetic materials (some actually specifying occlusive footwear as such). The soles themselves might make a difference, but not a big one and not one which those articles are referring to. Leather uppers, on the other hand, probably make a huge difference. The rise in foot infections probably has more to do with the decline of sandals and cotton socks and the rise of tennis shoes than it does with the decline of leather soles.

As far as used shoes, if one takes the proper precautions (sanitizing it, putting in new insoles, etc), I doubt the risk of infection is significantly higher than the risk one would experience simply from wearing and sweating in shoes.

Doesn't change the fact that they are still someone else's shoes. So, you know, ewww.

 

[RogerP]



I'm all for leather soles, though I'll stick with Dainite for snow, ice, and rain. I'm pretty sure the occlusive footwear referred to in the literature you cited refers to stuff like rubber work boots which are made entirely out of synthetic materials (some actually specifying occlusive footwear as such). The soles themselves might make a difference, but not a big one and not one which those articles are referring to. Leather uppers, on the other hand, probably make a huge difference. The rise in foot infections probably has more to do with the decline of sandals and cotton socks and the rise of tennis shoes than it does with the decline of leather soles.

As far as used shoes, if one takes the proper precautions (sanitizing it, putting in new insoles, etc), I doubt the risk of infection is significantly higher than the risk one would experience simply from wearing and sweating in shoes.

Doesn't change the fact that they are still someone else's shoes. So, you know, ewww.

Agreed with all of that.

 

[DWFII]



As far as used shoes, if one takes the proper precautions (sanitizing it, putting in new insoles, etc),

How are you going to put in new insoles? From your remarks, I suspect you don't even know what an insole is. And are you going to replace the lining while you're at it?

Sanitizing...how are you going to sanitize a shoe? With what? And how are you going to get whatever you use deep into the fibers of the leather where such infections lurk? Or under the edges of the insole, deep in the seams of the lining? I suspect you don't really understand the nature of leather either.

Finally, I don't know which is the more troubling pathology--the foot diseases or the nearly automatic, blind, knee jerk dismissal of well-researched and experienced information...offered in a kind and charitable spirit...that challenges what a person so desperately wants to believe.

Why do you think I post all this stuff that you and others so obviously don't want, can't abide, to hear or consider? What are my motives, do you suppose? Go back and re-read (read for understanding) this last bit:

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

When I was first in this business (and didn't know any better), I "inherited" a beautiful, almost new pair of moccasins by virtue of them being left for repair and never picked up. They were just my size, they fit me perfectly and I was poor as a church mouse. They were one of only a few pair of shoes that I have ever had in my adult life that I didn't make....and the only pair that weren't brand new.

Despite having gone through the jungles of SE Asia with no ill effects, within a year of "adopting" those moccasins, I developed a toenail infection. At one point in time it threatened to spread to all my toe nails and even the nails of my hands. I spent months and months on strong anti-fungals...at some risk to my liver...before it went into remission. I have never gotten rid of it entirely, however. The original toenail is still infected. That's probably 35 years ago now.

--

 

[Claghorn]

Easy there. I know you've beefed with a number of folks (or they've beefed with you, w/e), hence the defensiveness, but we've never interacted before, so don't jump all over me for how others have handled your advice in the past.

Clearly, I meant insole as in insert/insole (the Dr. Scholls type stuff). They are commonly referred to as such, and I have no qualms with continuing to do so. I don't know much about the nature of leather, but some reading suggests that while anti-bacterials work, anti-fungals are a trickier matter. So there's that. Regardless, there's no call for such harshness of tone.

As far as what you've linked, I had read through it. It's clearly talking about this kind of stuff:

And not



"Occlusive footwear" in medical literature discussing bacterial and fungal foot infections consistently refers to rubber work boots (or boots with steel cap toes).



As far as what I want to believe: I imagine rubber vs leather soles do make a difference. Just not as much difference as you make it out to be. And that's fine. I don't buy used shoes (because it's gross), and I prefer leather to Dainite weather permitting.

The way in which socioeconomic or cultural changes impact things outside of their respective spheres is neat. Exploring how the introduction of synthetics--both in footwear and in socks--has affected trends in podiatric infections is interesting. My initial comment was intended primarily to be a remark on this rather than a direct refutation to your previous post. I understand that to you footwear is an art, and one rapidly being lost. But not every disagreement (a slight one at that) is an attack on you or your art.

 

[RogerP]

Easy there. I know you've beefed with a number of folks (or they've beefed with you, w/e), hence the defensiveness, but we've never interacted before, so don't jump all over me for how others have handled your advice in the past.

Clearly, I meant insole as in insert/insole (the Dr. Scholls type stuff). They are commonly referred to as such, and I have no qualms with continuing to do so. I don't know much about the nature of leather, but some reading suggests that while anti-bacterials work, anti-fungals are a trickier matter. So there's that. Regardless, there's no call for such harshness of tone.

As far as what you've linked, I had read through it. It's clearly talking about this kind of stuff:

And not



"Occlusive footwear" in medical literature discussing bacterial and fungal foot infections consistently refers to rubber work boots (or boots with steel cap toes).



As far as what I want to believe: I imagine rubber vs leather soles do make a difference. Just not as much difference as you make it out to be. And that's fine. I don't buy used shoes (because it's gross), and I prefer leather to Dainite weather permitting.

The way in which socioeconomic or cultural changes impact things outside of their respective spheres is neat. Exploring how the introduction of synthetics--both in footwear and in socks--has affected trends in podiatric infections is interesting. My initial comment was intended primarily to be a remark on this rather than a direct refutation to your previous post. I understand that to you footwear is an art, and one rapidly being lost. But not every disagreement (a slight one at that) is an attack on you or your art.

Indeed.

 

[DWFII]



Easy there. I know you've beefed with a number of folks (or they've beefed with you, w/e), hence the defensiveness, but we've never interacted before, so don't jump all over me for how others have handled your advice in the past.

Clearly, I meant insole as in insert/insole (the Dr. Scholls type stuff). They are commonly referred to as such, and I have no qualms with continuing to do so. I don't know much about the nature of leather, but some reading suggests that while anti-bacterials work, anti-fungals are a trickier matter. So there's that. Regardless, there's no call for such harshness of tone.

Well for one thing, it's nonsensical to talk about inserts/insoles as a palliative to infections. Insert ten "insoles"...the infection is still in the shoe.

And secondly and more to the point, we are not talking about rubber soles we are talking about used shoes and the problems that come along with them.

As for my "harshness of tone," I don't consider anything I said to be harsh--stark perhaps, no cotton batting, but it's simply stating the facts. It only becomes harsh (or personal) if you take as such or are particularly defensive.

"Occlusive footwear" in medical literature discussing bacterial and fungal foot infections consistently refers to rubber work boots (or boots with steel cap toes).

Where is that specified? Or is it just speculation and interpretation?

Rubber soles...as you admit further on in your post...are occlusive, do hold in moisture to create, hot, humid, macerating environments. Not as much as all plastic, all synthetic running shoes but the effect is there.

And as I mentioned, when you contrast the use of rubber outsoles...or any synthetic component... with the standard of deliberate permeability inherent in all leather shoes the differences take on real meaning. The incidence of these diseases really begins with footwear in general...long before rubber or plastic was a factor.

But again it misses the point...bacterial and fungal infections can reside in shoes independent of the materials used to construct them. Bacterial and fungal infections can exist even when preventative measures are taken. Swimming pool waters are chlorinated but swimming pools are a primary vector for such diseases.

As far as what I want to believe: I imagine rubber vs leather soles do make a difference. Just not as much difference as you make it out to be. And that's fine. I don't buy used shoes (because it's gross), and I prefer leather to Dainite weather permitting.

There you go.

But that said, I am not making these issues out to be more than they are...people (you?) are making them out to be less than they are. I have said over and over again...in bold, bold italic, underlined and bold italic underlined...that these are just possibilities. Possibilities, that by virtue of my life and a set of unique experiences that encompass a wide range of situations, I have taken note of. Possibilities that I know are real. I share those experiences with people who are open minded enough to at least accept the possibility. Yet as with your post, all the repetition, underlining, etc., doesn't seem to be getting through. And as a result these discussions end up being about misconceptions, false assumptions and outright distortion. If there is a fault here it is in people feeling like they have to defend objects that they have no direct responsibility for/connection to (they didn't make the shoes, for instance)--a lack of objectivity, IOW.

My initial comment was intended primarily to be a remark on this rather than a direct refutation to your previous post. I understand that to you footwear is an art, and one rapidly being lost. But not every disagreement (a slight one at that) is an attack on you or your art.

I understand. But these discussions are not private mail either. I almost never address any issue just to the one person who last responded. Conversations take place among many people all at once...some of them nearly unseen and unheard. I am always mindful of the "audience" so to speak.

They don't take place in a vacuum, for that matter. Or in a isolated moment in time--they have a history.

I didn't consider your remarks an attack on me, but they were dismissive, in my view, if only because they sought to focus on the rubber sole aspect rather than the dangers of wearing used shoes. As I said before, leather itself is occlusive to some extent. People who don't wear shoes...even all leather shoes...don't have these problems. AFAIK no one was prepared, or looking to, rehash the rubber sole bit here. I was not. Nor, on the face of it, was it appropriate to do so.

But dismissive also because, like the remark that "occlusive footwear in the medical literature" only refers to rubber work boots, your remarks weren't substantiated (they may be true but when I read that information, I did not take that meaning). It seemed, again, like instantaneous, defensive rationalizations. Flippant denials.

If that's not the case then I misunderstood but I don't see how I could have read it any other way.

The "art" part of it doesn't signify. I'm not an artist.

But I ask again..and I invite anyone to answer this....what do you think my motives are?

--

 

[dbhdnhdbh]

I am a risk averse type. If I believed the risk of harming my feet was significant, I would not do it. How to investigate this risk?

With all due respect, expert opinion is what one refers to when there is no science. In this case, there is science on the subject.

2011 Sep;48(9):1101-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.02.005. Epub 2011 Mar 2.

pages 13–16, September 2005

Lots of information about risk factors, footwear barely mentioned and not a word about used shoes

2000;43(1-2):45-50.
Adhesion of dermatophytes to healthy feet and its simple treatment.

Watanabe K, Taniguchi H, Katoh T.
Author information

Abstract

At several public baths, we isolated dermatophytes from the soles of healthy volunteers by a new direct isolation method (foot-press culture method). We confirmed that a public bath is one of major sources of infection of dermatophytes. We showed that simple treatments such as (i) wiping the sole with a towel; (ii) washing with soap; (iii) 100 steps on another mat; and (iv) holding the foot up for an hour, significantly reduced the fungi on the soles of six healthy volunteers. These treatments may be effective for prevention of tinea pedis.

 

[Claghorn]

Vaughn et al. "Macerated Dermatitis and Occlusive Footwear." West Virginia Medical Journal Vol 109 2013

Archer-Dubon et al "Superficial Mycotic infections of the foot in a native population: a pathogenic role for trychosporon cutaneum." Pediatric Dermatology. Vol 20 2003

Chowdhuri et al "Epidemio-allergological study of 155 cases Of footwear dermatitis." Indian journal of dermatology, venereology and leprology. Vol 73 2007

Though another article referred to occlusive footwear as anything not sandals. The phrase "occlusive footwear" either doesn't appear much in literature or is ill defined :/

Edit: @dbhd, yeah, I stumbled upon tons of literature dealing with pediatric infections and the military. I'm guessing it's a big concern for them.

Edit edit: @dw

I could only speculate as to your motivations, but it's clearly something you care quite a bit about.

 

[DWFII]



I am a risk averse type. If I believed the risk of harming my feet was significant, I would not do it. How to investigate this risk? 

With all due respect, expert opinion is what one refers to when there is no science. In this case, there is science on the subject.

What does a study relating to diabetes have to do with whether used shoes can carry bacterial or fungal infections?

Do you intend to pour boiling water into your used shoes? (good luck with that).

One of the "scientific," medical articles I quoted suggested this all has a genetic factor with some people being more immune than others. Are you, certifiably one of the invincibles?

Swimming pools...despite chlorine being used..are major sources of such infections. Suggest anything? The body has it's own defenses--the repellance of the skin, for one. Water and common soap is a foil for many organisms. Yet. even so. how many people catch colds or use anti-bacterial soaps?

Oh! If they'd only "hold their feet up for an hour."

--

 

[DWFII]



Though another article referred to occlusive footwear as anything not sandals. The phrase "occlusive footwear" either doesn't appear much in literature or is I'll defined :/

I stumbled upon tons of literature dealing with pediatric infections and the military. I'm guessing it's a big concern for them.

Why do you think that is? When I was in the Army ...long, long ago...a standard issue was foot power to combat tinea pedis.

In the trenches of WWI foot disease was rampant and a major cause of non-combat related casualties. Not many rubber boots among the rank and file. Yet native peoples in rain forests are in water 24 hours a day. with no fungal or bacterial infections. What does that imply?

I could only speculate as to your motivations, but it's clearly something you care quite a bit about.

You're welcome to speculate...You wouldn't be alone. Clearly those people (perhaps not yourself) who dismiss my advice out of hand have not only speculated but come to a conclusion. One individual here, blatantly accused me of trying to pass myself off as an expert. Aside from the fact that I am an expert...by any objective definition (at least on the subject of shoemaking)...I don't know what they think I have to gain from it aside from a lot of grief from patently uninformed, misinformed and inexperienced people and those who have already made up their minds.

--

 

[dbhdnhdbh]

Quote:

Are placebo-controlled trials of creams for athlete's foot still justified?

Crawford F, Harris R, Williams HC.

Author information


Abstract

BACKGROUND:​

Placebo-controlled trials are useful in identifying effective treatments where none has existed, but their continued use once efficacy is established arguably contravenes ethical standards for medical research.

OBJECTIVES:​

To consider whether sufficient evidence exists to recommend the abandonment of vehicle-controlled studies in trials of topical treatments for athlete's foot.

METHODS:​

We searched nine electronic databases and bibliographies of review articles as part of an ongoing Cochrane systematic review from 1966 to 2007. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using a vehicle control design involving participants with a mycological diagnosis of a dermatophyte infection of the skin of the foot were included.

RESULTS:​

Allylamines, azoles, ciclopiroxolamine, tolnaftate, butenafine and undecanoates were all more effective than vehicle controls. Evidence of the superiority of azole creams over vehicle controls was fairly consistent from 1975 onwards. Data from patients treated with allylamines have shown their superior effects relative to vehicle controls since 1991 for even short-term outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS:​

The superiority of allylamines and azoles over vehicle in vehicle-controlled trials has been well established, and data demonstrating this fact have been available since the completion of early RCTs. These preparations are effective and safe, and investigators of RCTs evaluating topical treatments for athlete's foot need to choose potential comparators as control interventions in the light of this knowledge and to consider the ethics of withholding effective treatment from patients who seek treatment for this common foot infection.
Quote:

The effect of domestic laundry processes on fungal contamination of socks.

Amichai B, Grunwald MH, Davidovici B, Farhi R, Shemer A.

Author information


Abstract

Tinea pedis is a common chronic skin disease. The role of contaminated clothes as a possible source of reinfection is not fully understood. This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of domestic laundering at different temperatures in the eradication of fungal pathogens from contaminated socks. Samples from 81 socks worn by patients suffering from tinea pedis underwent domestic laundering at either 40 °C or 60 °C. The socks were dried at room temperature; fungal cultures were taken from two samples from, respectively, the toe and heel areas of the socks. Samples from socks washed at 40 °C revealed 29 (36%) positive fungal cultures, of which 14 came from the toe and 15 from the heel areas of socks. Trichophyton rubrum was isolated in four specimens, and Aspergillus spp. were found in 20 (70%) specimens. Samples from the same socks washed at 60 °C revealed five (6%) positive fungal cultures, of which three came from the toe and two from the heel areas of socks. Only Aspergillus spp. were detected. Yeasts were eradicated at 40 °C. Contravening current trends for energy saving and environmental protection, laundering at low temperatures is not effective in eradicating fungal pathogens, which requires high-temperature laundering at 60 °C.
Quote: Arch Dermatol. 2006 Oct;142(10):1279-84.
Factors influencing coexistence of toenail onychomycosis with tinea pedis and other dermatomycoses: a survey of 2761 patients.

Szepietowski JC, Reich A, Garlowska E, Kulig M, Baran E; Onychomycosis Epidemiology Study Group.
Author information


Abstract

OBJECTIVE:​

To evaluate the prevalence and factors influencing the presence of concomitant dermatomycoses in patients with toenail onychomycosis.

DESIGN:​

Prospective study based on a specially designed questionnaire completed by dermatologists.

PATIENTS:​

A total of 2761 patients with toenail onychomycosis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:​

The diagnosis of fungal skin infections was confirmed by direct microscopic examination or by culture.

RESULTS:​

In 1181 patients (42.8%) with toenail onychomycosis, concomitant fungal skin infections were noted. Tinea pedis was the most common and was found in 933 patients (33.8%). Other concomitant fungal skin infections were fingernail onychomycosis (7.4%), tinea cruris (4.2%), tinea corporis (2.1%), tinea manuum (1.6%), and tinea capitis (0.5%). The presence of concomitant fungal skin infections depended on number of involved toenails; duration of onychomycosis; sex, age, and education level; area of residence; and type of isolated fungus.

CONCLUSIONS:​

The coexistence of toenail onychomycosis with other types of fungal skin infections is a frequent phenomenon. It could be hypothesized that infected toenails may be a site from which the fungal infections could spread to other body areas. Effective therapy for onychomycosis might therefore be essential not only to treat the lesional toenails but also to prevent spreading the infection to other sites of the skin.
Quote: Int J Dermatol. 2007 Oct;46 Suppl 2:23-8.
Efficacy of triclosan soap against superficial dermatomycoses: a double-blind clinical trial in 224 primary school-children in Kilombero District, Morogoro Region, Tanzania.

Dinkela A, Ferié J, Mbata M, Schmid-Grendelmeier M, Hatz C.
Author information


Abstract

BACKGROUND:​

Superficial dermatomycoses are a common problem in tropical regions. Due to limited resources, specific antimycotic therapy is often not available. The present study was performed to assess the clinical efficacy of the antimicrobial agent Triclosan in bar soap in comparison with regular soap against selected superficial dermatomycoses in Tanzanian schoolchildren.

METHODS:​

820 primary school children were examined for skin disorders and 224 of these were included in the soap trial. The clinical presentation of dermatomycoses was recorded using a symptom score. Samples were taken for microscopic examination and mycological culture. The study participants received either bar soap containing Triclosan or a placebo for 2 months. They were re-examined at the end of this period.

RESULTS:​

The benefit achieved by the addition of Triclosan was not statistically significant. Overall cure rates for Triclosan and placebo groups taken together were 21.8% for tinea versicolor, 58.3% for tinea capitis, 55.5% for tinea corporis and 68.8% for tinea pedis. This was confirmed microscopically. For the majority of the children the dermatomycoses improved significantly.

CONCLUSIONS:​

The results strongly argue for regular soap use against common dermatomycoses as a low-cost and effective treatment. This promising finding should be considered in settings where dermatophyte infections represent a public health problem and where access to appropriate treatment and financial resources are limited.
Quote: Clin Exp Dermatol. 2007 Jan;32(1):60-3.
A clinicomycological study of fungal foot infections among Algerian military personnel.

Djeridane A, Djeridane Y, Ammar-Khodja A.
Author information


Abstract

There have been few studies on fungal infection of the foot in military personnel. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and aetiological factors of superficial mycoses of the foot in military personnel attending the Department of Dermatology of the Army Central Hospital in Algiers, Algeria. A complete dermatological examination was performed in 650 male military personnel. Cultures of skin and nail specimens of the feet were performed for each participant. Fungal infection of the foot (including tinea pedis and Candida interdigital infection) was clinically diagnosed in 147, and confirmed in 119 by positive cultures, resulting in a total prevalence of 18.3%. When subjects were grouped according to military rank, fungal infection of the foot was prevalent in troop soldiers; when grouped according to years of service to the army, the infection was frequent in military recruits. The dermatophyte species Trichophyton rubrum (20.9%) and the yeast species Candida parapsilosis (18.7%) were shown to be the major causal agents isolated. Tinea pedis and Candida interdigital infection are the most prevalent (68%) superficial fungal infections among Algerian military personnel.
If you don't feel like looking them all up and reading these reports in the scientific literature, I offer one person's summary:

There is a high risk of anyone developing athletes foot, with a lower risk of getting nail infections

Most people who have these infections are unaware of it (i.e. not horribly crippling diseases)

The risk is very high for people who have lives like elite soccer players or military recruits training in ground combat- long periods of time in their shoes while engaging in strenuous, sweaty, exercise.

The infections are communicable and are far more prevalent among people who engage in these activities in groups.

The communication seems to involve moist areas like showers.

Socks can become contaminated with the organisms.

It is not clear whether contaminated socks contribute to transmission or recurrence of infection.

Routine laundry in hot water is sufficient to kill the organisms.

Routine washing of the feet with regular soap is effective in managing infection.

Antifungal sprays are highly effective in limiting colonization of shoes.

For shoes that are already contaminated, antifungal sprays, UV, and ozone treatments are effective.

Elderly patients and patients of any age with diabetes should be careful about foot hygiene.

I can find no scientific reports of the risk of developing tinea pedis or onychomycosis from wearing used shoes. Of course, that does not mean it cannot occur. However, the risk factors have been carefully studied by a number of groups for many years and used shoes so far have not hit the radar as a concern.

Note that I did NOT say that one cannot find assertions on the internet that wearing used shoes can cause foot infections. I am just saying that I cannot find any scientific evidence that such assertions are true. That being the case, I cannot consider this to be a significant reason to avoid such shoes. If anyone is aware of EVIDENCE on this subject (not opinion) I would love to be pointed in that direction.

 

[archibaldleach]



I can find no scientific reports of the risk of developing tinea pedis or onychomycosis from wearing used shoes. Of course, that does not mean it cannot occur. However, the risk factors have been carefully studied by a number of groups for many years and used shoes so far have not hit the radar as a concern.

Note that I did NOT say that one cannot find assertions on the internet that wearing used shoes can cause foot infections. I am just saying that I cannot find any scientific evidence that such assertions are true. That being the case, I cannot consider this to be a significant reason to avoid such shoes. If anyone is aware of EVIDENCE on this subject (not opinion) I would love to be pointed in that direction. 

Most of the risk factors / mitigating factors you commented on seem comparatively easy to test. Wearing used shoes seems like it would be a harder risk factor to evaluate. You'd need to know who is buying their shoes used, how often, etc. and would need to control for every other risk factor that might be relevant. I recognize that this does not constitute evidence one way or another, but sometimes when there is limited evidence for something, it's because evidence is difficult to come by. Essentially, not all claims for which there is not strong evidence are created equal.