Josh about to pass his grandpa

Josh about to pass his grandpa
Here, at age three, Josh regularly runs a mile or two with me--and I have to work hard to keep up!

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Nefarious Nike: Can Chris McDougall be Serious?

     It will be interesting to see if the barefoot and "minimalist" running shoe phenomenon turns out to be a fad.  My guess is that it won't, and that in some ways, for some runners, it will be a part of our running gear for the future.  But not everything about this phenomenon adds up.  With the aid of a half-century's hindsight, here's my belated view of where we're going with this.
     I say "belated" because I see that a lot of the impetus for this phenomenon came from the huge popularity of Christopher McDougall's book Born to Run, which I admit I did not read until quite recently.  McDougall recounts the story of the barefoot-running or minimalist-sandals-running Tarahumara Indians of Mexico's remote Barrancas del Cobre (Copper Canyons), and then spins off into the history of the modern running shoe.  His basic messages are (1) that the Tarahumara are the greatest runners in the world by far, and (2) that the modern running shoe is a terrible thing, ignorantly designed and cynically marketed for profit at the expense of thousands of unnecessarily injured runners, including McDougall.
     I'm a little embarrassed to be reacting so belatedly, because I may be the most experienced long-distance runner in America (is there anyone else out there who has run competitively for 54 consecutive years?) and my experience has incuded (1) fairly good knowledge of the Tarahumara, and (2) fairly extensive familiarity with the history of the modern running shoe.  In 1977, as the founding editor of Running Times magazine, I published three articles about the Tarahumara, and in 1984 a fourth article--shortly before the first scientific articles on the "Running Man" theory of human evolution were published..  And what our articles made clear is that while the Tarahumara are indeed amazing, they are not uniquely amazing.  What made them remarkable was not that their best runners were "superathletes," as suggested by the subtitle of McDougall's book, but that everyone in their society runs.  We of the USA have superathletes too (as McDougall eventually acknowledges), but we also have a huge number of people who are sadly sendentary and soft.
      In the way he starts his story, suggesting that there 's a kind of god-like superhuman out there in the canyons somewhere, McDougall is over the top, as I'll discuss in a forthcoming post devoted specifically to reviewing his book.  (And  by the way, I won't totally trash the book, because in some respects it is really good.)  And as for the origins and future of the modern running shoe--well, I think McDougall is just plain wrong.  At Running Times, I published numerous independent reviews (by sports podiatrists and test runners) of running shoes from all the manufacturers--Adidas, Tiger (later Asics), New Balance, Nike, Etonic, Saucony, Brooks, Lydiard, Hi-Tec, Reebok, Turntec, Puma, and a few others.  Over the years, we got feedback from hundreds of experts on biomechanics, anatomy, sports inuries, etc., and I don't think they could all have been as blindered as Born to Run suggests.
      McDougall writes that the modern running shoe was invented by Nike's co-founder Bill Bowerman in 1972, and that Bowerman didn't know diddly about running.  Which is a little like saying Dwight Eisenhower didn't know diddly about war.  His implication seems to be that until Bowerman came along, all running shoes were what we'd now call minimalist.  The new "modern" shoes introduced cushioning, pronation control, and more rubber under the heel, etc.  McDougall's assessment is that these new developments were big mistakes.  I disagree.  Minimalist-shoe or barefoot running may be great for some people, but for others those modern shoes he disparages were a godsend.  
     I ran in my first pair of modern running shoes before McDougall was born, and long before Nike existed, so those shoes couldn't have been invented by Nike!  (The waffle sole, yes, but the enhanced cushioning and stability, no.)  I had started running cross country at Westfield (New Jersey) Senior High School in 1956, and all the kids on my team were given the standard distance-running shoes of that era--low-cut, black canvas-top shoes with no cushioning and only a small, narrow outsole under the heel.  They were what we'd now call minimalist.  But then I heard about the new kind of running shoe that some of the top runners were wearing, that you could get from a company called Adidas.  I couldn't find a store anywhere in New Jersey that sold them, but I heard that you could get them at a place called Carlson Import Shoe Co, in New York City.  I caught a train to New York and found the company in a dingy, second-story walk-up in lower Manhattan.  There wasn't even a sign on the street.  The shoes I bought were green and white, with kangaroo-skin uppers (later made illegal), good cushioning, and nice support in the heel.  They fit me like kid gloves.  They were magic, and I wish I still had them.  I went from 7th man on my team to 7th in the state championship.
     The thing is, those Adidas shoes were a huge improvement, at least for me, over the canvas flats.  Today, I see tens of thousands of runners (many of them fairly new to the sport) going in the opposite direction, swept up in the thrall of McDougall's "naked tour" and the romance of the myth of the barefoot Tarahumara, denouncing the shoes of the past four decades as rip-offs.  And I wonder if the shoe manufacturers, who have responded by offering lots of new minimalist models, are being swept up a little too easily themselves.
     It's going to take me a while to sort this all out (and to learn more about the "barefoot debate"), but my present inclination is to think a lot of runners may have overreacted to the romance of the Born-to-Run cult.  Philosophically, I like the idea of taking a cue from our ancient ancestors.  (We need to do that in a lot of ways beyond just how we decide on footwear, as I discuss on the website http://www.willhumansendure.com/.)  I think the science of the Running Man theory is sound.  But civilization has subjected us to 10,000 years of cultural intervention and breeding that have separated us from our origins so drastically that it's unrealistic to think we can simply throw off our shoes and run free.  Some can, but a lot of us can't.  If you're starting to run at age 30 or 40 and have spent three or four decades letting your feet be carried around in rigid plastic or leather coffins on smooth floors or pavement, the muscles, tendons, and bones in your feet may retain very little of the strength and resilience our ancient ancestors had--or that today's Tarahumara still have.  You may be better off doing what I did when I got those green-and-white Adidas.  That was 52 years ago, and I'm still running strong.  I have never bothered with shoes that cost $100 or more (McDougall is more on target in suggesting that buying one of the more expensive models can be a fool's errand), and for the past few years I've been happy with fairly basic Saucony or Asics models priced around $60 to $80, which have the same basic features those magical Adidas shoes had half a century ago.  I hope the shoe companies keep making shoes like that for people like me.  And if Chris McDougall would like to set up another "greatest race the world has never seen" with some of the over-70-year-old Tarahumara included, those guys can run in their sandals and I'll be there in my Sauconys.  And I think I'll do pretty well.
    


    
  

24 comments:

Joel said...

Well said! New trends can be exciting but one should not throw out things that have worked perfectly well, for millions of people, for decades.

runningmymouthoff said...

Too many thoughts to share in a single comment but suffice to say you articulated many of my thoughts far more effectively than I ever could. One thing that I would add is that our minimalist running ancestors did not face the obesity issues that is so prevalent in the US today -- that alone, in my opinion, throws not only a wrench, but a few screwdrivers and the rest of the toolbox into McDougal's arguments.

Johann said...

Great post! I believe the long term (5 years or so) will tell. Personally I don't believe the serious marathon and ultra runners will be able to go the minimalist or barefoot way. I believe it will carry on but the hype will blow over during 2011.

Kovas said...

Barefoot and minimalist running will find their places, just as supportive shoes and technical apparel have. No one thing fits everybody. It's a good time to be a runner, with so many options to choose from.

asheley said...

Great post! I just read the book last year. While barefoot running seems cool, I know that it is not for me!

cheryl said...

I have been running competitively for 40 years-so you've certainly "got" me on the longevity thing.
I don't believe the Tarahumara are the "greatest" runners-they run in that terrain the way they do (sandals/barefoot) because they have to. I think they would have worn shoes long ago if available to them.
When I see a barefoot runner winning major marathons I will sit up and take notice. Funny that the supporters have to go way back to Zola or Bikila to support their point of view. (And even then most don't know that Bikila ran a faster marathon WITH shoes after the barefoot finish.)
Oh to be a podiatrist or a physical therapist-I am sure the numbers of people with minimalist shoe injuries will fold-over on itself in the next few years! (It's already started from what I read on blogs!) :-)

Tracy Thomas said...

Cheryl...the Tarahumara WERE given shoes several years ago and they hated them and quit wearing them...going back to their sandals which didn't give them the troubles that the "real running shoes" did.

Craig said...

This is fantastic, I'll be a regular reader here for sure. Insight and nuance are rare commodities in most sportswriting. It's either "X stinks!" or "X is the ONLY way right way!" "Mr. J is a bum!" "Mr. J is The Savior!" Looking forward to reading more.

Dave said...

Great post. my sentiments as a reply are right on with what Kovas wrote above.

cheryl said...

It will be interesting to see where the "minimalist" shoe thing goes...
Of COURSE they didn't want to wear shoes! I don't like to wear shoes most of the time either! Who does? But I live in an asphalt and concrete world and need them.
Like I said-when "real" runners (ie the people I read about in Track and Field News) start running barefoot..I will read about them.

aristheo said...

It's not about running barefoot/minimalist vs. traditional shoes. It's about learning how to run gently. Christopher McDougall mentions this conclusion in his blog: http://www.chrismcdougall.com/barefoot.html.

aristheo said...

I do agree on the fact that you should stick to what works for you. But to say that our feet can never adapt to barefoot running is complete nonesense. You should check out the studies mentioned in this article: http://www.runblogger.com/2011/05/can-running-in-minimalist-shoes.html

richchai said...

''And if Chris McDougall would like to set up another "greatest race the world has never seen" with some of the over-70-year-old Tarahumara included, those guys can run in their sandals and I'll be there in my Sauconys. And I think I'll do pretty well.''
Sorry,i don't quite like these lines,sound egoistic;a person's seniority and experience only gain respect if he always keeps humble...

Pb said...

Reading the book is a start. You prospective is valuable as an example of the generation who learned to run before the modern shoe. Good to hear your story.

Pb said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BigBlue said...

I think what is never said is that you can run barefoot and with shoes, yes, it is possible to benefit from both. Hope this comment isn't to offensive:)

Jason Robillard said...

Always good to hear opinions from the other side. ;-)

As someone who teaches about barefoot and minimalist shoe running, you made a PERFECT point:

" If you're starting to run at age 30 or 40 and have spent three or four decades letting your feet be carried around in rigid plastic or leather coffins on smooth floors or pavement, the muscles, tendons, and bones in your feet may retain very little of the strength and resilience our ancient ancestors had--or that today's Tarahumara still have."

Too many people have spent their entire lives in shoes that cause atrophy, then expect to immediately transition to barefoot or minimalist shoes. It can take a very long time to regain that strength.

Of course, this also points out the obvious- we shouldn't be putting our kids in rigid plastic or leather coffins that cause that atrophy in the first place.

Good post, by the way. Your point of view sometimes gets lost among my peers, and that does all of us a disservice. If we're not open to seeking out dissenting opinions with an open mind, we'll never make progress. Kudos.

-Jason

TheHeapsToe said...

I think too many people (like yourself) read into "Born to Run" in the wrong way. McDougall wasn't saying that the Tarahumara are superathletes and better than us. He was saying that like it or not, we all come from a common ancestry in which we were born to run. We can all be amazing runners with the right attitude towards running. I admit, he spent too much time on the shoes, but you yourself know that running was changed because of the change in shoes, that cannot be denied. All McDougall was trying to say is that maybe the change was bad in more ways than we give it credit.

TheHeapsToe said...

Oh, I forgot to add in the end there, that really was a good post. I like seeing that other people out there take the time to analyze these things and take them to heart. I'm going into research and plan on getting to the bottom of some of these questions raised by barefooters. I think in the end it will all come down to a mix of everything and moderation in all things.

beckster5051 said...

I understand that it's not for everyone, but minimalist running (and McDougall's book) has changed my life and I am quite grateful. Before I discovered near-barefoot running, I often suffered running injuries. Now that I wear minimalist running shoes, I haven't suffered an injury, my form has improved, I can run faster, and for much longer periods of time. I do not believe this is a fad or a trend that will die out. I think you all will see in the near future, that it will only get more popular. Thank you, Christopher McDougall!

beckster5051 said...

I also agree with richchai above when he stated,

"Sorry,i don't quite like these lines,sound egoistic;a person's seniority and experience only gain respect if he always keeps humble..."

The author's post does come off a bit egotistical, and to be blunt, a tad jealous of McDougall. Just being honest :)

wotadvert7 said...

i just love what Mc Dougall said Trust me he is BEST!
Thats what i will call him =)
Nike Sandals

mike said...

Thanks a lot for sharing. You have done a brilliant job. Your article is truly relevant to my study at this moment, and I am really happy I discovered your website. However, I would like to see more details about this topic.reflect scientific

Stacey Gordon said...

The Tarahumara are at least smart enough to put something on the bottom of their feet. Barefoot, in our urban world is asking for trouble. And what is so "natural" about individual toes for shoes? Sandals, make sense... gloves for my feet, not so much