McDougall Article in New York Times

the video in that article shows the true mcdougall personality - utterly 100% committed and sounding like he's making stuff up even if he isn't.

what did he say? 17th century guys did this? huh?

I have nothing against minimalist running, I do it myself, but almost none of these people have any idea what they are doing. It has really taken me about 2 1/2 years to tweak my form to get it where I want it to be - and a lot of that was just establishing the strength in my feet and calves to be injury-free. Anyways, seeing these people go out and buy some VFFs and hit the streets is scary and I have no doubt many of them will injure themselves.

Push Alt F4 wrote:

I have nothing against minimalist running, I do it myself, but almost none of these people have any idea what they are doing. It has really taken me about 2 1/2 years to tweak my form to get it where I want it to be - and a lot of that was just establishing the strength in my feet and calves to be injury-free. Anyways, seeing these people go out and buy some VFFs and hit the streets is scary and I have no doubt many of them will injure themselves.

I also don't have a huge problem with minimalism, and I do it a lot myself. I take my shoes off at my work desk, I don't wear shoes at home, I do yard work in Vibrams, and I'll go for shorter hikes in Vibrams and longer hikes and backpacking trips in light hikers. I've never had an injury that kept me out for more than a week. I only wear shoes for style and to protect my feet when hiking these days.

But the article really only offers personal examples, and no sort of legitimate scientific study that can prove running barefoot on asphalt can prevent injuries and make you faster.

Also, 100-ups look exactly like form drills. Nobody has forgot about those to improve form over the last 100 years.

Different things work for different people. I can see a lot of people benefiting from barefoot, and a lot of hobby joggers getting injured while running on asphalt.

Why is this guy still being published in The Times? He is a doofus.

The key is if you are going to go barefoot or with a minimalist shoe you better change your mechanics too... Otherwise, scientific data has shown you are 2x more likely to get hurt...

What has he done in the last two years? A great runner with so much promise. 13:17 in college and an NCAA cross champ.

Red Banker wrote:

Why is this guy still being published in The Times? He is a doofus.

He's the Gary Taubes of running. A self-professed expert who is anything but, and who is so invested (literally and figuratively) in his philosophy/"science" that if he finds some fact contrary to it, he can in no way acknowledge it, because his entire reputation and wealth has been built off rejecting anything that might contradict the ideas he pushes. The exact opposite of a true researchers or scientist.

He's not trying to get you to run faster or be less injured. He's selling an ideology, nothing more, nothing less.

13:20, but yea very promising. When you get on an injury roll, it can very super hard to get out of.

break it up wrote:

What has he done in the last two years? A great runner with so much promise. 13:17 in college and an NCAA cross champ.

I wish the article was about josh mcdougal

Wwjd running group wrote:

I wish the article was about josh mcdougal

I clicked on this thread thinking I was getting a NYT article about Josh McDougal. I was disappointed.

He finally admitted that you can be a heal runner barefoot and you regular running shoes don't necessarily cause you to be a heal runner

Wwjd running group wrote:

I wish the article was about josh mcdougal

Letsgetletdown

I enjoy McDougall's writings on running. It's provocative and he reveals some interesting characters on the way. And, I'd never heard of the 100-Up. Yes, it's just another form drill, but there is something enjoyable about knowing useful wisdom about running, even good running form, was discussed at least as early as the late 19th century. This isn't, however, scientifically proven stuff (randomized, large sample, controlled studies). To the extent that people might go about running barefoot or minimalist without the correct form based on a reading of this and other articles/books, then this could be a problem. I do believe there is a correct way to run and that this form will reveal, at least for the purposes of protection, cushioned shoes to be unnecessary. But, that is just opinion and hypothesis. The only real testing I've done is on myself.

As I've said way plenty of times on these boards..... the science / data on barefoot running might be spotty and inconclusive, and McDougall may have less than honorable interests at stake, ... but the fact remains that the science / data on traditional running shoes is just as minimal (pun intended). If, back in the 70s, the first few running shoe companies developed Five Fingers, we'd be having the opposite conversation right now: "Pronation control? Cushioning? Who is this guy???" Whether you're running in VFF's or Kayano's, it all comes down to anecdote and personal experience. What works for you works for you, and I'm happy if it does. But don't think for a second that minimalism flies in the face of established science and validated research. It only flies in the face of tribal knowledge and community norms.

He writes like he is a snake-oil salesman.

"Johnny couldn't walk, he couldn't run, his knees were shot and his back hurt! He was in a veritable hell, I tell you! But one shot of my miracle 100-Up and look at him today! The vigor, the strength! It is mir"

Broken Record wrote:

As I've said way plenty of times on these boards..... the science / data on barefoot running might be spotty and inconclusive, and McDougall may have less than honorable interests at stake, ...

You really could have stopped there, because this guy pretends he has discovered the one true way to run, backed 100000% by science, research, and tradition, and anything contrary to these "facts" are just plain wrong.

Tinfoil wrote:

He writes like he is a snake-oil salesman.

"Johnny couldn't walk, he couldn't run, his knees were shot and his back hurt! He was in a veritable hell, I tell you! But one shot of my miracle 100-Up and look at him today! The vigor, the strength! It is mir"

bingo. The idea that running, when done "the McDougal way", will never, and can never, result in injuries is the most absurd concept ever. Well, only second to: if you run in a traditional running shoe, there is no way to do so effectively and remain uninjured. What a joke.

Like I said, he is from the Gary Taubes school of "research." (you could probably throw Malcolm Gladwell in there too).

crazy person wrote:

It's a magazine article, so it's pretty long. But I cringe every time I see people running barefoot on pavement.

For 20 years I ran in shoes and suffered chronic ITBS and shin splints. Now I run road marathons without injury.

What about that makes you cringe? Your Nike stock going down?!

I read the article. McDougall seems to have changed his song a little bit, which is good. The big emphasis of this piece was running form. I think we could all agree that the average jogger has pretty awful running form.

Running barefoot is supposed to force you into good form because what's wrong should be painful. But it's really the form that's important, not the footwear.

I've seen plenty of people pounding their heals in Vibrams because they don't know any better and breaking old habits is hard. I know there's going to be some idiot who reads this article and decides to run the NY marathon barefoot despite never training that way.

McDougall's enthusiasm has left a trail of victims. He really needs to emphasize that starting to run barefoot should be like learning to walk again - a slow process of strengthening.