And... Just to add, the super shoes definetly are not just placebo :) I have a pair. I don't train in them, on purpose, but as nearly everyone on here knows by now, come race day - they make a difference.
-
191
-
donkey Doug wrote:
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.'
At least for some of the Nike supershoes there is is peer reviewed data from CU-Boulder (where one of the authors was Shayla Kipp).
70 -
Jgt11 wrote:
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.
+1
ALTRA is all i use when not running.
Escalante & Escalante Racer are great daily & office shoes.
Torin for added warmth in the winter.
90 -
donkey Doug wrote:
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.'
Of course Salazar won the 1994 Comrades Marathon when he was 35-36.
122 -
wasting my time to save yours wrote:
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 thereinThere'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
Ultra runners are swingers... looks like we’ve been missing yall
40 -
“Finally” exposed? Everyone with a brain knew as soon as it came out that it was full of exaggeration and non-scientific nonsense. It’s the same as all the other Gladwell, Krakauer, Pollan et al., book and cable news shows: entertainment disguised as journalism.
141 -
Breaking news? wrote:
“Finally” exposed? Everyone with a brain knew as soon as it came out that it was full of exaggeration and non-scientific nonsense. It’s the same as all the other Gladwell, Krakauer, Pollan et al., book and cable news shows: entertainment disguised as journalism.
There is a vein of contrariness in Western culture of which I've become very suspicious. Without even knowing his politics, I see McDougall in the same way I now see Taibbi, Weiss, Greenwald, Gabbard, Maher, Gladwell, Sullivan, Brand and their ilk. They strike at opportune times and score big, but in hindsight their observations are revealed to be either (1) obvious or (2) false. It's also uncanny how often they move over the course of time toward illiberalism verging on hate. Show me a young 'maverick' culture observer, comedian or writer and I'll show you a likely future right wing hate monger.
213 -
Yes. And I’ve always wondered how he was able to do that. What his training was like leading up the race, if he had had many shorter races beforehand, and why he didn’t race much or at all after that race…
41 -
donkey Doug wrote:
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.
Including a few of the key points in case the link is not allowed:
-Mcdougall believes supershoes don't work and the tech behind them is nonsense.
-Claims Nike is responsible for thousands of American's deaths
-Got injured while running barefoot, but choose not to include it in the book.
The article was too long, too late. Makes many legitimate points, but the writing is all over the place.
80 -
It was an interesting story, but nothing of what Macdougall said or thought was interesting or mattered. It was the first mass telling of Micah True's story, and of the Tarahumara people. If you tried to read any of MacDougall's other books you realized very quickly that he knows very little about running.
40 -
I never bought into that horse $hit. It was pretty amazing to watch that movement happen, but for the life of me I never understood why anyone would buy into that garbage.
It's one of those running "movements" that was lead by the back of the pack. If you've been at this sport for awhile, you had to know it's days were numbered.
32 -
I thought it was discredited years ago? Vibram had to stop making claims about the superiority of their weird foot-glove shoes because they got sued when so many people got injured wearing them
My favorite type of stories in this field are when some non-runner journalist or academic finds some person from a remote community that runs a ton of miles either barefoot or in some type of wooden clog, and they proclaim them "born to run", then start shouting about how this is real running and Nike are playing us for fools. They did this with a Mexican woman and claimed she was some unknown superhero, turns out she was running the HM in 1:45.
111 -
donkey Doug wrote:
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?I'd always wondered what Born to Run guys would have to say about the super shoe revolution and it's kind of cute to see him sticking to his guns. I will say that after reading the book in high school it did get me running in some lighter, lower drop shoes which I enjoyed and I still sometimes rotate in if I find a good pair. The devotion to "the movement," however, is beyond ridiculous at this point.
100 -
runnER/DR wrote:
Jgt11 wrote:
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.
Xero shoes is my preferred brand currently, they seem to keep growing and have more and more options.
40 -
even if super shoes don't have any advantage it gives you confidence and a good mindset . look good feel good race good
50 -
wasting my time to save yours wrote:
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 thereinThere'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
He did start a movement based on false claims that lead to people being injured. Shoe companies created entire minimalist shoe models because of his book. I think pseudoscience should be debunked.
81 -
It's nice to get in 3-5 barefoot miles a week on grass. I think it helps form, works some different muscles in the lower legs and feet, and puts some extra work on the achilles tendon (which is nice if its currently healthy and you want to keep it pliable). But we knew that before his book came out.
Also, you could just as easily not do it.90 -
donkey Doug wrote:
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.
Including a few of the key points in case the link is not allowed:
-Mcdougall believes supershoes don't work and the tech behind them is nonsense.
-Claims Nike is responsible for thousands of American's deaths
-Got injured while running barefoot, but choose not to include it in the book.
His upcoming book is Born To Run Around Naked. Humans evolved like all animals being unclothed in worries and existential strife. Look at the Dandatijuana tribe in sub-Saharan Africa. They run with a thin pouch covering their choo choo and yet they are and to run withstanding the rough and tumble of African weather and chase antelopes to exhaustion.
2035: people dying en masse of hypothermia and Noclo, a maker of the emperor’s new clothes is being sued for its unproven claims about Noclo wear making people hardier and happier.
92 -
To the OP: What is to be exposed?? The title track of Bruce Springsteen's 3rd album is an utter masterpiece!!
44 -
He found a tribe that lived at 5-7,000 ft, ate a perfect runners died of all natural carbs and no refined sugars, etc. and spent most of their day on their feet running around, herding goats, etc. and his conclusion from all that was that you shouldn't wear running shoes. Meanwhile, E. Africans live at altitude, eat similar diets and run all the time but train and race in running shoes and are the best distance runners in the world. But, yeah. Running barefoot is the key.
190
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.