Maybe I missed it, but I am surprised that the popular running book, "Born to run" and the barefoot/minimalist running it helped popularize hasn't gotten the skeptical treatment it deserves on this forum. While they've been talked about here, I haven't seen a thorough discussion about them, or a skeptical take-down, especially when the book and the barefoot/minimalist culture is often pseudo-scientific and chock-full of logical fallacies. I realize that BTR isn't only about barefoot running, but it has helped popularize it. Also, barefoot/minimalist running has taken on a life of its own, independent of BTR.
I've only read parts of BTR, but it is wildly popular among runners and even some non-runners. I sometimes meet some formerly sedentary people who claim they took up running after reading BTR, which is a good thing. On the other hand, some runners take the claims about barefoot/minimalist running very seriously, and have since given up their running shoes. Increasingly, barefoot or minimalist runners I know are getting injured at the same rate as shoe runners, if not higher. Or their running performance hasn't improved.
MacDougall in the book and in articles repeatedly claims that "running shoes haven't been proven to prevent injury", which may be trivially true if you don't count injuries from broken glass, and sharp rocks, among other things that may happen while running barefoot. Among barefoot runners, if a barefooter or minimalist runner gets injured, they claim it is because their legs aren't used to it yet, they are still "transitioning".
The claims(better performance, less injury) made by barefooters and makers of minimalist wear are backed up by virtually no evidence, and rely heavily on the naturalistic fallacy. One manufacturer of minimalist wear recently settled a multi-million class action suit against it for it's unscientific claims.
For those not familiar with the naturalistic fallacy: Barefoot running is "good" because it is more "natural"; sneakers are "bad" because they are "unnatural". Appeals to tradition are also made in BTR, with a tribe called the Tarahumara in Mexico, who run in thin sandals, serving as some kind of lost ideal of what running should really be all about.
The barefoot/minimalist running community increasingly looks like the alternative medicine community. It's pretty much nothing but anecdotes about improved performance and reduces injury rates, since there is little science to back up their claims. "Big Sneaker" fills the role of "Big Pharma". If you argue against barefoot running, you're some kind of Big Sneaker "shill" or have been brainwashed by Big Sneaker. Meanwhile, many companies and individuals are cashing in on the minimalist fad.
Like I said before, I haven't read BTR in its entirety, but I haven't read Dianetics either for that matter, but that doesn't mean I can't argue against the claims of Scientology. MacDougall sometimes claims he didn't intend to create a barefoot/minimalist running trend, but it looks like this is exactly what BTR has accomplished. I have no problem with people who enjoy barefoot/minimalist running; my problem is with those making extravagant, unscientific claims about it and trying to profit from it.
I admit I am not an expert in physiology or athletics. As both a distance runner and a skeptic, I find this fad both annoying and perplexing. But I sometimes do ask myself if maybe I am missing something. Are there any benefits to barefoot or minimalist running, besides the fact that barefoot/minimalist runners weigh a tiny bit less or their feet sweat a little less in the heat?
I've only read parts of BTR, but it is wildly popular among runners and even some non-runners. I sometimes meet some formerly sedentary people who claim they took up running after reading BTR, which is a good thing. On the other hand, some runners take the claims about barefoot/minimalist running very seriously, and have since given up their running shoes. Increasingly, barefoot or minimalist runners I know are getting injured at the same rate as shoe runners, if not higher. Or their running performance hasn't improved.
MacDougall in the book and in articles repeatedly claims that "running shoes haven't been proven to prevent injury", which may be trivially true if you don't count injuries from broken glass, and sharp rocks, among other things that may happen while running barefoot. Among barefoot runners, if a barefooter or minimalist runner gets injured, they claim it is because their legs aren't used to it yet, they are still "transitioning".
The claims(better performance, less injury) made by barefooters and makers of minimalist wear are backed up by virtually no evidence, and rely heavily on the naturalistic fallacy. One manufacturer of minimalist wear recently settled a multi-million class action suit against it for it's unscientific claims.
For those not familiar with the naturalistic fallacy: Barefoot running is "good" because it is more "natural"; sneakers are "bad" because they are "unnatural". Appeals to tradition are also made in BTR, with a tribe called the Tarahumara in Mexico, who run in thin sandals, serving as some kind of lost ideal of what running should really be all about.
The barefoot/minimalist running community increasingly looks like the alternative medicine community. It's pretty much nothing but anecdotes about improved performance and reduces injury rates, since there is little science to back up their claims. "Big Sneaker" fills the role of "Big Pharma". If you argue against barefoot running, you're some kind of Big Sneaker "shill" or have been brainwashed by Big Sneaker. Meanwhile, many companies and individuals are cashing in on the minimalist fad.
Like I said before, I haven't read BTR in its entirety, but I haven't read Dianetics either for that matter, but that doesn't mean I can't argue against the claims of Scientology. MacDougall sometimes claims he didn't intend to create a barefoot/minimalist running trend, but it looks like this is exactly what BTR has accomplished. I have no problem with people who enjoy barefoot/minimalist running; my problem is with those making extravagant, unscientific claims about it and trying to profit from it.
I admit I am not an expert in physiology or athletics. As both a distance runner and a skeptic, I find this fad both annoying and perplexing. But I sometimes do ask myself if maybe I am missing something. Are there any benefits to barefoot or minimalist running, besides the fact that barefoot/minimalist runners weigh a tiny bit less or their feet sweat a little less in the heat?
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1lzhuur
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire