Matt Fitzgerald Needs a Logic Lesson

The more articles I read from Matt Fitzgerald, the less respect I have for him.

agreed-

The guy is incredibly pompous in his writing and just reinvents the wheel in his training books.

I liked his book on nutrition, pretty basic but pretty comprehensive. I haven't enjoyed his articles. My opinion of his book may be colored by the fact that I paid money for it.

"If we can say that everyone is built to run barefoot we can say that everyone is built to fly a fighter jet without glasses"

This is the part that really bothers me. Running was around when humans were developing. Fighter jets were not. A better argument from his perspective might have been that not everyone is built to run fast, which is true. But everyone is built to run efficiently, and that is the basis of the minimalist movement.

Okay, so an article on the biomechanical efficiency issues surrounding running while shod vs. running barefoot that was written not by someone with a background in biomechanics, not by a physiologist, not by a physical therapist, not by a coach, not by someone with an extensive competitive running background nor even a freaking dietitian, but by a nutritionist! Yeah and I'm going to read an article on auto performance written by a guy who works at a car wash or an article on investment written by a guy who drives a Brinks truck. Give me a fukkin break, Fitzgerald is a joke and so is the publication that pays him for this crap and so is any dope who happily swallows the crap he pumps out.

The whole minimalist backlash thing annoys me. As a disclaimer, I've always preferred running barefoot on grass to running in thick, heavy shoes, and the first pair of running shoes I owned were a hand-me-down pair of waffles, so I've been a "minimalist" since before the Born to Run craze.

The reason the minimalist backlash thing annoys me is because like any trend, it's gotten distorted and implemented improperly. Yeah, I think people in general are better off in non-interfering, lighter shoes. Would I put some guy who's 5 ft 10 and 200 pounds in a pair of vibrams and send him out on pavement? Hell no! He's asking for injury, and any person with a lick of common sense could tell you that! I've seen people out on the pavement taking baby steps at 12min pace in vibrams, and I think it's ridiculous. The whole point of the light shoes is to run with a natural stride- taking stupid little baby steps and having to slow way down is just as bad as a huge motion control shoe that forces you to slam your heels into the ground.

The anti-minimalists are just as annoying and smug as Born To Run Converts. This Fitzgerald guy is a pompous moron.

Only a sith deals in absolutes. This guy embodies evil in its purest form.

Jedi wrote:

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

Personally I run in minmalist shoes but I am not necessarily an advocate for it for other people. I switched to running minimalist (flats, not barefoot) because I desperately needed to change something so I could stop being chronically injured. It has worked for me. However, if somebody is running in big bulky trainers w/ a lot of pronotion prevention and it works for them, I'd advise them to keep doing that.

I do believe that, in general, big bulky trainers and orthotics are pushed by shoe companies, shoe store employees, and podiatrists and are probably overused. That doesn't mean they don't work for some people.

I don't know if that means I agree w/ Matt or not. I guess it does. Minimalism is not the only way. It may not be the best way for some.

I don't read Fitzgerald's writings. He seems to be trying to pass off op-ed pieces as though they're scientific articles. The content seems to spawn from his nether regions.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

I do believe that, in general, big bulky trainers and orthotics are pushed by shoe companies, shoe store employees, and podiatrists and are probably overused. That doesn't mean they don't work for some people.

It certainly works for Geb.

Does anyone know what shoes Matt Fitzgerald runs in? Does he run? Has he ever tried minimalist running shoes?

Don't knock it if you haven't tried it!

Matt's just another talking head cashing in.

well wrote:

It certainly works for Geb.

Yup, and I wouldn't advocate him switching to minimalism. Or anybody else that those kind of shoes are working for.

well wrote:

It certainly works for Geb.

But he's been plagued by Achilles injuries. He's fast, as is.

Actually Matt run in the Nike Frees and in his book 'Brain training for runners' he recommends minimal shoes.

Running a marathon and running "a step" are very different things. I don't agree with his choice of "can't run a step," as anyone can run a step, but I do agree that some people are simply not built for marathons.

Since you're so hung up on analogies, not being able to complete a marathon isn't the same as not being able to lift anything, it's akin to not being able to carry shit around for 3-6 hours. Plenty of people aren't built to do that, just like plenty of people aren't built to run a marathon That said, plenty are.

themanontherun wrote:

"If we can say that everyone is built to run barefoot we can say that everyone is built to fly a fighter jet without glasses"

This is the part that really bothers me. Running was around when humans were developing. Fighter jets were not. A better argument from his perspective might have been that not everyone is built to run fast, which is true. But everyone is built to run efficiently, and that is the basis of the minimalist movement.

You're missing the point. Fighter jets may not have been around when we were developing, but eyes certainly were. Using fighter jets is simply an example of one particular thing which you need good eyesight to do, and a surprising number of people can't due to eyesight alone.

Put it this way: people have been using their eyes as one of (if not the) main senses for thousands (and then some) of years. Why is it that a HUGE amount of the population still doesn't have great eyesight? His point is that running abilities may be similar. Some people can run well, some can run ok but are naturally deficient (like someone who has mediocre eyesight), and some really just can't run naturally (like PLENTY of people who are borderline useless without glasses).

If you think that every human being was built to run efficiently, you're insane. I know plenty of people who just aren't, due to weird bone structure, weird stride/form, whatever. They can still run, but they sure as hell aren't efficient.

Just because the majority of humans are decent runners doesn't mean every human is. That is the point.

[quote]socrateez wrote:

Now, surely there are those outliers who by genetic defects or accidents or disease certainly cannot run (think Christopher Walken, polio, etc.)

Why can't Christopher Walken run?

He prefers walkin'.

This threads reminds me that barefoot advocates are more pompous and annoying than any writer. The fact is, there is the not much evidence pro or con shoes. Ironically the poster makes the same mistake he accused Fitzgerald of doing interchanging any running with "endurance running".

P.s. no believes the op is not some barefoot nut so quit pretending.

You seem to be willing yourself to get all worked up.

What he is saying is that everyone is different, so use what works best for you.

He himself wears Nike Frees. I saw him at the end of the California International Marathon wearing them.

Although you found some errors, his books are well written and lucid.