Matt Fitzgerald Needs a Logic Lesson

Isn't Matt just saying that "one size doesn't fit all"?

He's just observing (rather anecdotally), that since "Born to Run" became popular, some people are hurting themselves by doing too much too soon.

In his book "Brain Training", he also cautiously recommends, that if you have no problem with your shoes now, don't change a thing.

I gather his experience is that he tried minimalist shoes, and liked it. Then he tried barefoot running, and had problems adapting. Given his cautious advice above, about going "minimalist", Matt would be smart enough to gradually go barefoot.

Matt Fitzgerald = Owen Anderson 2.0

Fitzgerald might be over your head Socrateez.

You should be criticizing Chris McDougall. Have you read that idiots' book? If not then watch the HBO special two weeks ago where they interview him.

Fitzgerald is saying one thing does not work for everyone, while McDougall believes barefoot running is for everyone.

From your post it seems like you have an agenda against Fitzgerald or you are about as intelligent as McDougall. Eitherway, you are completely off base.

And for the record, I have a graduate degree in biomechanics, run in trainers, do barefoot drills, currently work in the sports science industry and have run 2:18 in the marathon. I am not trying to be a D-Bag nor do know Fitzgerald, but your post pissed me off because it was trash. Plus, I think people like Fitzgerald are good for the running community and I felt the need to defend him.

Fitzgerald couches his argument within the aim of getting faster. So just how fast is he and is there evidence that he has much of a clue about getting faster than that? Or is he all talk?

"and many other functions that used to be necessarily for survival"

You can not write either. Do not pick on someone for being gramatically incorrect if you yourself, SUCK

He trains way too hard for his fitness level and gets injuried often and underperforms at races. When people (me included) told him to take it easier, he shut down his blog and refused to listen.

I don't know how fast Matt actually is, but this idea that someone has to be fast for their advice to be good is just silly. How fast was Lydiard? How fast is Daniels? How faster was Peter Coe? How fast was Renato Canova?

Surf & Turf Flowers wrote:

Fitzgerald couches his argument within the aim of getting faster. So just how fast is he and is there evidence that he has much of a clue about getting faster than that? Or is he all talk?

Why can't Christopher Walken run?

I think he means Christopher Reeves, but don't interrupt him, he's on a roll.

Were the German's clad in shoddy footwear when they stormed the Harbor of Pearls? Nay!

socrateez: there are those outliers who by genetic defects or accidents or disease certainly cannot run (think Christopher Walken

Why can't Christopher Walken run? Have I not heard about his accident or disease? You're not making a pun on his last name, are you? Does that watch he's carrying cause discomfort?

I agree that the snippets of Fitzgerald's prose I've encountered here and there don't exactly inspire awe of his intellectual powers.

I agree, it's silly that the basis of his little op-ed is "but will it make me faster" yet that's what he went with. Okay, then who (himself or anyone else) has he enabled to notable improvement with his insights into biomechanics and physiology? And I don't mean telling people to remove the skin and fat from the chicken they eat.

And don't put MFitz in the same sentence with Coe, Lydiard, or Canova because that's just stupid. They have produced, if not with themselves then with others.

"Do not pick on someone for being gramatically incorrect if you yourself, SUCK"

This is hilarious. GraMMatically, maybe?

Do you believe that nobody who has read one or more of his books has found information within which helped them to improve?

I believe that Lydiard, Canova, and Coe are proven. I also believe that MFitz pumps out whatever most closely resembles what his employers endorse as an editorial bias that pleases advertisers and what most of the underachievers that read Uncompetitor want to be told. Just because you go from Higdon to Pfitzinger and see improvement (and most improvement comes just from accumulated training more than some slight change in diet or core work or some magic workout) doesn't mean you wouldn't have improved at a greater rate by going with McMillan (just using an example) instead. I'm talking about clear evidence that his theories as a package have helped someone (or several someones, preferably) to reach what is clearly their full potential. As someone said above, he's the new Owen Anderson.

I'm not arguing whether or not he is a good coach, I frankly don't know. What I am arguing is that the previous post claiming that we could disregard his information based on his PRs is complete crap.

Surf & Turf Flowers wrote:I also believe that MFitz pumps out whatever most closely resembles what his employers endorse as an editorial bias that pleases advertisers and what most of the underachievers that read Uncompetitor want to be told.

This is, of course, in stark contrast to C. McDougal...

Christopher may not be walkin' or runnin', but he sure can dance....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMZwZiU0kKs

And I never made any claims one way or another regarding CMcD. CMcD is not relying on multinational corporate advertising for his salary, either. I have far fewer questions regarding CMcD's motivations than I do MFitz's. Countering CMcD's crap with more crap is not the answer. It goes to MFitz's credibility as one who is attempting to refute. There are many good points to counter CMcD's claims, MFitz just fails to present any. His swings miss wildly. He has zero basis and the sources he chose for the article have little more than that. I missed the claim you reference, please quote.

The joke is this: what's the opposite of Christopher Reeves?

Surf & Turf Flowers wrote:

I have far fewer questions regarding CMcD's motivations than I do MFitz's.

It must be nice to be this naive. Chris wouldn't sell any books without his made up controversy AND the very essence of Born to Run is "well it worked for me"