McDougall Article in New York Times

For 20 years, maybe you ran in the wrong shoe.

I used to brush aside McDougall talk a little more, but after hearing him recently in the video on another thread, he's dangerous. He's getting/going to get people injured because he is pushing a "one-solution-fits-all" mantra.

Yes, there are people who benefit from going minimal. There are way more that can't/won't do it in a safe way and will get injured. The vast majority of those could have stayed injury free by working with someone who really knows how to fit them and finding the correct shoe.

another shoe guy. wrote:

For 20 years, maybe you ran in the wrong shoe.

"Maybe," but it was "shoes," not "shoe," and it was a number of very well-respected podiatrists and orthopedists who told me which shoes and inserts and orthotics to wear. In fact, they're still well respected, which amazes me.

There are way more that can't/won't do it in a safe way and will get injured. The vast majority of those could have stayed injury free by working with someone who really knows how to fit them and finding the correct shoe.

How the hell do you know that? Are you aware of ANY of the relevant science?

Are you even aware of the total absence of science to back up any of the claims made for running shoes?

Now I'm sure you can go through the studies above and say "this one is too small," and "this one is only white people" and "this one is only black people" and so on ... but if shoes did 10% of what the ads claim, don't you think there'd be some hard evidence for it?

Respected Dr./ podiatrist does not equal shoe fitting/running expert. I see poorly informed individuals all the time and it can be very trying because as a populus we are taught to assume doctors always know what they are talking about.

I've said repeatedly minimalism can be THE BEST CHOICE for some people. The Beast/Foundation etc. can also be THE BEST CHOICE for some others. Most are somewhere in between.

And yes, I have read and studied as much of the information about this debate as I can.

Add me to the list of people who were disappointed that this was not about Josh McDougal.

[quote]categorically wrote:

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.

^^^This. Minimalist shoes promote good form but they won't do the job for you. You need to cooperate. They are only facilitators. People get injured with minimalist shoes because they continue to heel strike with even less cushioning so imagine how that ends up. I have been trying minimalism for a year and a half now and I just got a pair of Nike Lunaracers (lots of cushioning) yet I have stayed true to minimalist form (mid foot/forefoot strike) and it's working wonders.

McDougal Fanboy wrote:

Add me to the list of people who were disappointed that this was not about Josh McDougal.

+1

“Most people today think barefoot running is dangerous and hurts, but actually you can run barefoot on the world’s hardest surfaces without the slightest discomfort and pain.”

“You don’t need any protection at all except for cold and, like, gravel,” Nigg now says.

“I used to prescribe orthotics. Now, honest to God, I run 20 miles a week, and I haven’t had an injury since I started going barefoot.”

I find the debate between minimalism and cushioned shoes intriguing. That being said, when these people say stuff like this they just look very ignorant.

Most running injuries are caused by overuse. The muscles simply fatigue (or breakdown) and either your brain tells them to tighten up for protection or so you stop running. Ignoring that leads to stress fractures and all sorts of other problems from inflammation etc. Shoes or lack thereof have little to do with that.

A Skeptic wrote:

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.

Same here, an actual runner, not the run barefoot doofus.

I wear what I think of as minimal footwear. NB1400, Nike Zoom XC 2, NB Minimus Road, NB MR 800 (for track intervals), and Nike Lunar Racer. All of them are neutral. I run with mid-fore foot strike. I have to force myself to heel strike.

I had a pair of the first Nike Elites (supportive) and I developed ITBS. I got over it and with the neutral shoes, I have no problems other than muscle soreness from pushing my pace and distance.

The minimal mantra gets people injured just as the running mantra does. Its exercise, it pushes your body beyond it's current fitness level. That in itself causes "injury". You get stronger and faster by injuring yourself each day.

People with garbage physiology and fitness will get hurt no matter what they run in or on. I think the bigger scourge is the prevailing idea among non-runners and marketers is that non-runners can just jump in and run a marathon in 12-14 weeks without a proper physical build up to the proper fitness level that allows the body to endure the millions of small injuries required to run far and fast.

Mcdougall's idea that barefoot running will force people into good form is generally ok with me. My issue is with the lack of focus on gradually building each person's fitness level until they can run easily. Especially when the People involved are accustomed to sedentary lifestyles.

redux wrote:

Especially when the People involved are accustomed to sedentary lifestyles.

Bingo!

I cringe every time I hear a pro minimalist mention the "Terahumara" or "our ancestors". THAT'S NOT WHO WE ARE OR HOW WE LIVE! Give up your car, your job and computer, move to where there is no pavement or concrete and you have no access to fast food or processed foods and then maybe it makes sense to try to run like the Terahumara. Until then, be smart, figure out what works for you and enjoy it.

Red Banker wrote:

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

Because he is a skilled and entertaining writer.

[

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

Because he is a skilled and entertaining writer.[/quote]

Indeed. Who gives a shite if some flubby newbie gets a running injury from thundering around his intolerable cul de sac in Centurion sandals? Shin splints aren't cancer. All this hand wringing about how McDougal is "dangerous" and is gonna "get people injured", like he's scattering IED's around the country side. Form matters, and if your form is good you can probably do without 14 ounce foam bags on your feet when you run. And if you are new to running and pound along like a drunken fat rhino, neither vibrams nor motion control feet coffins will keep you from your appointment with some ultimately trivial running injury. But with all the good information about how to train and how to improve your form available literally at your pudgy fingertips, if you get injured, it's, one, your own damn fault and not some journalist's and two, not all that important. So shut up, put down your pie fork and take personal responsibility for your running.

He is neither a skilled writer nor is he entertaining. He cannot be said to be a journalist in any sense of the word - more apt to describe him as an advocate/lobbyist. If he presented his arguments in a more cogent and balanced manner then people would not complain about him. Instead he writes like a traveling medicine man and therefore opens himself up to just ridicule. Anyone who enjoys his writing either doesn't know good writing or is willfully blind because he is a "true believer."

How much is your health worth, Ladies and Gentlemen? It's priceless, isn't it? Well, my friends, I have the answer to put you in the pink. That's right, Ladies and Gents, for the cost of one book, Nature's True Remedy will succeed where shoe companies have failed. Only Nature can heal and I have the secret of Nature right here in this little book. My secret formula, from God's own laboratory, the Earth itself, will cure shine splints, stress fractures, muscle pulls, knee injuries, IT band problems and all sorts of injuries you thought were unavoidable

Skills: He is skilled enough to write for several magazines and to produce a best-selling book as well as freelance, such as the NYTimes article. Works for me.

Entertainment: Fair enough, but that is also a matter of personal taste. Just as music, food and art are open to interpretation. I enjoyed Born to Run, even if he did write a little over-the-top.

I think your perspective is a little clouded by his new-found advocacy. You don't have to agree with his 'selling of minimalism' and I admit too that he seems like a reformed smoker or Born Again Christian with his new love, but that is a different topic from his skills as a writer or whether you or I find him entertaining (with the written word).

38 posts on this thread and yet nobody has asked Renato Canova for his opinion?!

I'm gonna settle this debate and I'm gonna do it scientifically. For the next month I'm going to run with a shoe on the left foot and none on the right. Then I'll see on which side I get injured.

After I recover I'm going to repeat the experiment but this time with the shoe on the right foot.

I'll let you know. Stay tuned...

so...how slow are you?