Sole Search : Personal health: Barefoot may be best, but kids still need shoes--flat, flexible, lightweight ones.

Shoe shopping for children surely ranks among life’s most trying experiences.

First comes the assault on family harmony: Try persuading an older child that she doesn’t need a new pair of shoes when her younger sibling does.

Then comes the assault on grown-up sensibilities: Styles that most attract the young set are invariably the ones that most revolt parents. Froufrou bows. Sequined shoelaces. Space-Age spring soles. A rainbow of clashing colors. But never the right one in the right size.

And finally, after spending $50 or $60 or more, you get home--but now the little darling has changed her mind and refuses to wear them. Something even more totally awesome is on the market.

Amid this tumult and Angst , there is one piece of good news for shopping-weary parents: According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, shoes need not be expensive to be good for a child.

Were it not for glass on the streets and sticks and stones in the playgrounds, children would do better wearing no shoes at all, according to a study published in Pediatrics, the academy’s journal.

Dr. Lynn T. Staheli of the Department of Orthopedics at Children’s Hospital and Medical Center in Seattle has reviewed more than two dozen scientific surveys of footwear. He has concluded that, contrary to popular opinion, the “best shoes” for children “most resemble the barefoot state.”

Shoes should be flat, flexible, lightweight, made of material that can “breathe” and be neither too “grippy” nor too slick on the bottom, either of which can cause a fall, Staheli says.

In other words, no heels, no heavy leather, no pointed toes--which rules out cowboy boots for young city slickers. It also rules out glassy-slick party shoes for young princesses, high-heeled party shoes for would-be debutantes, and “corrective” shoes for toddlers whose parents--or shoe salesmen--think they have flat feet that need fixing.

“A pair of shoes has as much medical value as a shirt or a coat,” Staheli says. “Parents should remember that when they go shopping and (should) buy accordingly.

“A light, inexpensive pair of cloth sneakers is probably the best bet, given that most children will outgrow their shoes before they wear them out.”

Staheli’s advice is widely accepted by the medical profession, Stride-Rite and other major children’s shoe manufacturers. It may, however, come as something of a surprise to parents who made their first footprints in stiff leather shoes and who are now bombarded with aggressive companies advocating the advantages of biomechanically designed arch-supports and Space-Age cushioned soles.

Well-cushioned soles are probably advantageous to active adults and to teen-agers nearing their full-grown body weight because cushioning is comfortable and may reduce stress fractures and “over-use” injuries to bones and soft tissues. But beyond comfort, according to the academy’s journal, there is little else most parents should consider in helping children select safe footwear.

Unlike most sales pitches and advertising claims, these conclusions are based on “objective data rather than impressions or tradition,” according to the academy.

For years, it had been said that children would get flat feet if they did not have strong arch supports. In the 1920s, in fact, a few experts went so far as to advise parents to encourage children to crawl rather than walk early, for fear the children’s arches would become permanently weak.

Although there have been few studies about what “corrective” shoes actually do for a child’s foot, Staheli says, there has been “ample” evidence over the years that children who do not wear shoes have far fewer foot problems than those who do.

A 1905 study in the Philippines and Central Africa, for example, found that barefoot tribesmen had no pain and excellent mobility in their feet. A 1931 study of unshod natives in the Belgian Congo found a striking absence of bunions, corns, hammertoes, fallen arches and other “foot deformities.” The only major problems were cuts and parasitic infections. A 1958 study compared shoe-wearing and non-shoe-wearing Chinese and found that the barefoot subjects had greater mobility and fewer deformities.

And now, in a complete reversal of earlier thinking, scientists say flat feet aren’t even a problem. The first evidence came in a classic 1947 study of the Canadian Army, which found flatfoot to be a “benign” condition. And a 1985 study of the Israeli Army showed that it may even be a desirable one: Soldiers with low arches had fewer foot injuries than those with high arches.

Given all this information--which has clearly been around for years--why is so much fuss being made over “well-designed” shoes?

Part of it is cultural, Staheli theorizes.

A lack of shoes--as a lack of some other items of clothing--is a sign of poverty. “In the ‘30s, you heard people disparagingly say of a man, ‘He can’t even buy his kids shoes,’ ” Staheli says. “ ‘Shoeing’ is a parent’s responsibility in modern American culture.”

But shoes are by no means uniquely American--nor are they even modern inventions.

According to S. F. Stewart’s history of footgear, the earliest known footwear dates back about 10,000 years and was recovered from caves near Ft. Rock, Ore. Shoes were worn for protection from injury in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Pointed shoes came into fashion in the Middle Ages in France, when Count Fulk introduced them as a way of hiding his deformed feet. Heels were introduced in Europe in the 16th Century, perhaps to stabilize a warrior’s foot in the stirrup of a saddle, Stewart says.

Even shoe sizing is a modification of measurements decreed by King Edward II in the 14th Century. The barleycorn, which equals about a third of an inch, was used as the basic measure. A shoe 9 barleycorns--or 3 inches--long was the starting size for children. For adults, the standard size began at 7 inches or 21 barleycorns.

Modern shoe sizing is equally complicated and is, in fact, the only aspect of shoes to which parents should devote some energy.

The first step is for parents to listen to their children. If they don’t like a pair of shoes or if the shoes are uncomfortable, children won’t wear them--at least not willingly.

Yet, as parents know all too well, children are not always reliable in saying what feels good and what doesn’t. As a result, parents have to rely on expert help--which is sometimes hard to come by.

Some doctors think it may be advisable to shop regularly at a reputable shoe store that has qualified sales clerks--although that may mean paying more money for the same product.

But how, many parents wonder, can one tell if a sales clerk knows what he or she is doing?

The acid test is to take children in regularly to see if they have outgrown their shoes. Given average growth rates, once every three months is about right for young children; once every four or five months for older children. A good shoe salesman will not tell customers it is time for new shoes every time they walk through the door.

Feet are the foundation of the body. They contain one quarter of the body’s bones--52--and are laced with ligaments, nerves and blood vessels. They are complicated pieces of machinery that should not be tampered with, Staheli says.

“If you must wear shoes, pick those shoes that interfere the least with the natural movement of the foot,” he says. “The best thing you can do for your feet is to leave them as nature left them.”