Stumbled across an interesting article breaking down all the 'iffiness' within Born to Run. The book always struck me as sketchy. Yet there has been near-universal love from basically everyone I know who runs, for what is in my opinion a work of fiction. Sharing below-- it is rather long and a bit dull. But tons of good and revealing nuggets in there.
Christopher McDougall struck gold with Born to Run. But is there any truth to the story? The following is an excerpt from ‘The Worst Exercise in the World.’ If there is a single universal truth, one which has remained constan...
Okay, I will share a few other interesting quotes.
On supershoes
...[supershoes are] this junk that has absolutely no science to it. By next summer the technology will be forgotten.
Is any shoe manufacturer prepared to claim that wearing their running shoes will improve your distance running performance? If you are prepared to make these claims, where is your peer reviewed data to back it up?
On injury prevention
Know why you’ve never seen an ad for a running shoe that actually tells you what the shoe will do? Because there is no evidence that running shoes do anything to prevent injuries. None.
On there being no cheating in ultramarathons (this is the author, not Mcdougal:
'The Lance Armstrong talk reminds me of another theme that presents itself throughout the book: McDougall’s strong disdain for frauds and fakes. Ultra-running is propped up as the gold standard; the sole unsullied sport in which one would never dream of cheating or taking drugs. This is because, according to McDougall, as relayed to him by the legendary Adams State coach Joe Vigil, prize money is slim and media coverage is lacking. Therefore, he conjectures, there is nothing for competitors to gain by doing so.
This belief stands in stark opposition to everything that is human nature, of course. As long as there has been sport, athletes have been cheating, prize money or not. To prop up ultra-runners as fundamentally ‘better’ humans than anyone else on the planet is a strange (but brave) stance to take, as it is bound to backfire. And no surprise, it already has, numerous times. Just google ‘trail running’, ‘epo’ and ‘course-cutting,’ or reach out to any serious ultra-runner you know. If anything, the opposite might be true: fringe, rebirth-driven sports such as trail running, CrossFit, and obstacle course racing (OCR) pull in a demographic that by nature skews disproportionally toward those possessing less than upstanding scruples.'
On American Runners being better in 70's (and never burning out!)
'McDougall also presents the idea that American runners used to be better in the 70’s and 80’s, mostly because they didn’t worry about cushioned shoes or tech. According to McDougall, all those guys did was run three times a day in thin shoes, and they never burned out, because, shoot, they didn’t know you were even supposed to burn out! Ignorance is bliss for elite runners, evidently. McDougall offers Frank Shorter and Alberto Salazar as examples, but here’s the interesting thing: those guys DID in fact burn out, and they did so in spectacular fashion. Shorter never improved in the marathon after the age of 25, and he was essentially finished by age 30. Meanwhile, Alberto Salazar’s best marathon was at age 23. In the years following that race his unsustainable training caused his immune system to essentially shut down, to the point that he had to hop onto Prozac --and possibly other substances, as many in the sport have suggested-- in order to gain any semblance of a normal life. Salazar was also out of the sport by just 25--and this is when most runners are just beginning to approach their best times.'
On 64-year-olds being able to run equal times to themselves at 19 y/o:
'Then there’s the strange idea presented, that after peaking around age 27, runners on average can continue to maintain times that were equal to or faster than their 19-year-old selves. Not just for a year or two, mind you-- McDougall wrote that this performance maintenance was possible all the way until the age of 64. This simply isn’t true. I'm aware of the study being touched on here, and it is one of the more flawed and misrepresented running studies I’ve ever come across. Simply put, running performances are age-graded for a reason.'
I can't imagine anyone caring enough about Born to Run to write a "take down" of such ridiculous length. If you want the short version, it's that McDougall:
1. Exaggerates some of the details in his book 2. Unfairly blames many of society's health woes on shoe industry titans (primarily Nike) 3. Pushes for minimalism in footwear without adequately acknowledging the dangers therein
There's also a more general attack on MDougall's credibility that gets into the super shoe debate and a bunch of other rambling nonsense, but it's all pretty dull.
The one bright spot was the dissertation on a specific ultra running cheating scandal that was immediately followed by the revelation that many ultra runners are swingers lol
The author list most credibility with me when, in the book, he went chasing after antelope saying he would soon chase down and kill one and be bringing home 500 or 600 pounds of meat. Had he ever even seen an antelope? A male weighs 150 pounds tops, and once butchered, you'd be lucky to get 50 pounds of meat.
The one bright spot was the dissertation on a specific ultra running cheating scandal that was immediately followed by the revelation that many ultra runners are swingers lol
The one bright spot was the dissertation on a specific ultra running cheating scandal that was immediately followed by the revelation that many ultra runners are swingers lol
Go on…..
I don't remember this and don't plan on re-reading it, sorry.
Like people actually took the running barefoot thing in the book seriously? I always thought people would be like yeah if I was born and raised barefoot I'd be down to do so, but since I wasn't I'll work on my form and maybe try to use more minimal shoes every now and then in my running when it makes sense. At least the main take I took from the book was more inspirational and motivation than anything as far as what I should change as far as footwear.
As someone who runs a decent amount in minimalist shoes, I feel most people would be better off wearing thin, flexible wide shoes for most of the day then changing into cushioned shoes for their run than the opposite. Wearing a cushioned stiff shoe all day then deciding to run 4 miles barefoot is a recipe for disaster.
As someone who runs a decent amount in minimalist shoes, I feel most people would be better off wearing thin, flexible wide shoes for most of the day then changing into cushioned shoes for their run than the opposite. Wearing a cushioned stiff shoe all day then deciding to run 4 miles barefoot is a recipe for disaster.
People still run in minimalist shoes? This is honestly news to me. I thought vibrams went the way of those plyometric Strength shoes.
I literally read over half of born to run. I didn't finish. What I found dumb was how they talked about how fast the hombres ran. There was a quote somewhere(I'm not bothered to find exactly) about how they zip by in a flash. If they are going at ultra pace they won't be zipping by. Even if Bekele ran a 100 WR under 10 hours you wouldn't say he is zipping by if he is going just under 6 minute miles, no matter how impressive the ultra record is. My dream would be to see him do this. Zipping or zooming or whatever the description was would mean sub 4 pace, but ultra runners wouldn't be able to do that. I also find it suspect that they don't mention any mile splits for the races, like the Leadville one. How can you have a book with a story describing a race without mentioning mile splits
As someone who runs a decent amount in minimalist shoes, I feel most people would be better off wearing thin, flexible wide shoes for most of the day then changing into cushioned shoes for their run than the opposite. Wearing a cushioned stiff shoe all day then deciding to run 4 miles barefoot is a recipe for disaster.
People still run in minimalist shoes? This is honestly news to me. I thought vibrams went the way of those plyometric Strength shoes.
People ran barefoot and/or in minimalist shoes before Born to Run turned it into a fad. The fad is gone but some people still run barefoot and/or in minimalist shoes. Most just don't make noise about it.
I run on average 75 miles /week. Of those I run some 6 miles barefoot (mostly cool downs after workouts) and 20 miles in minimalist shoes, on easy days.
I would run more barefoot if I could but that's just not an option where I live.
The one bright spot was the dissertation on a specific ultra running cheating scandal that was immediately followed by the revelation that many ultra runners are swingers lol
As someone who runs a decent amount in minimalist shoes, I feel most people would be better off wearing thin, flexible wide shoes for most of the day then changing into cushioned shoes for their run than the opposite. Wearing a cushioned stiff shoe all day then deciding to run 4 miles barefoot is a recipe for disaster.
People still run in minimalist shoes? This is honestly news to me. I thought vibrams went the way of those plyometric Strength shoes.
When I slower, shorter runs with my wife a couple times a week, I wear my minimalist shoes as a means of getting the adaptions of running barefoot without actually being able to run barefoot. I think it's pretty clear that adding barefoot components to training can benefit distance runners, but hopefully we can agree that 100% of training in those shoes is not beneficial.
I have only about 2.5 decades of running but in that short time I have seen these fads come and go. People believe they have latched onto something unique and then milk it for money while they can. Generally speaking there is a measure of truth to what they are saying but their promises and exaggerations are necessary to bring in the $$$. Another rabbit hole that I found during the Pandemic was the Maffetone method. There is some general truth in what he is saying but Youtubers and others take it way too far. And they need to do so to get the clicks.
You say "finally exposed!", but I think most runners have realised it's not to be taken too seriously for a long time now. I could see many holes in his theories as I read it but I still enjoyed reading it and think there's are some things to be taken from it, even if you don't buy in completely.
The article was long and boring and seemed poorly referenced, similar to Born to Run. I didn't get to the end.
