Christopher McDougall's Born to Run

[clv101]

Has anyone read Christopher McDougall's Born to Run? I'm reading it now. There's an article (and video) about it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27well.html

And a good extract here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...-Are-expensive-running-shoes-waste-money.html

What do people think? I'm thinking to give it a go, get some very light, thin trainers and start landing on my forefoot rather than heal. It seems to be how we're evolved to run!

In a paper for the British Journal Of Sports Medicine last year, Dr Craig Richards, a researcher at the University of Newcastle in Australia, revealed there are no evidence-based studies that demonstrate running shoes make you less prone to injury. Not one.
It was an astonishing revelation that had been hidden for over 35 years. Dr Richards was so stunned that a $20 billion industry seemed to be based on nothing but empty promises and wishful thinking that he issued the following challenge: 'Is any running-shoe company prepared to claim that wearing their distance running shoes will decrease your risk of suffering musculoskeletal running injuries? Is any shoe manufacturer prepared to claim that wearing their running shoes will improve your distance running performance? If you are prepared to make these claims, where is your peer-reviewed data to back it up?'

Dr Marti's research team analysed 4,358 runners in the Bern Grand Prix, a 9.6-mile road race. All the runners filled out an extensive questionnaire that detailed their training habits and footwear for the previous year; as it turned out, 45 per cent had been hurt during that time. But what surprised Dr Marti was the fact that the most common variable among the casualties wasn't training surface, running speed, weekly mileage or 'competitive training motivation'.
It wasn't even body weight or a history of previous injury. It was the price of the shoe. Runners in shoes that cost more than $95 were more than twice as likely to get hurt as runners in shoes that cost less than $40.

 

[tom_e]

Its pretty much how I run naturally, I find when I run on my forefoot there is a lot more spring and it feels much better than with my heal striking first

 

[firstborn]

There's never a mention of those that have switched to 'forefoot' running and screwed up their calf, achilles etc. due the added stresses on these areas.

Run how you are comfortable running, trying to change it based on somebodies search for attention is a recipe for dissaster.

 

[physichull]

Thread revival extraordinaire!!!

I got this book a while ago but have only just got around to reading it. What an entralling, charming little book it really is. You don't even have to be that interested in running to enjoy it.

Top rated book.

 

[Vampire]

I bought this book a while back on Kindle. I've always been a forefoot runner anyway but I thought this book was dire and boring as hell, fortunately you can get refunds with Kindle so that's what I did.

 

[Richie]

I think I tend to land midfoot as in the bit between mid-arch and ball of foot. I have tried to run forefoot and it just feels awkward. The only time it doesn't is when I am running up steep hills

 

[Voltjunkie]

When people say a forefoot strike they don't actually mean your forefoot. Biomechanically efficient runners will land on their mid-foot and gently drop their heel as opposed to landing on the ball of the foot and dropping their whole foot.

Some people will use a mid-foot strike when running shod but if your shoes have a drop on them (difference in height between toe and heel) you have to plantarflex your foot to not land on the heel.

There's never a mention of those that have switched to 'forefoot' running and screwed up their calf, achilles etc. due the added stresses on these areas.

Run how you are comfortable running, trying to change it based on somebodies search for attention is a recipe for dissaster.

The barefoot or minimalist movement is not somebody's search for attention whatsoever. There is irrefutable scientific evidence coming out in favour of barefoot running (see Daniel Lieberman's study for an example).

I won't deny that some people decide to swap to running barefoot and injure themselves but I would put that down to the person not transitioning properly and not the act of barefoot running itself. When people who run 10 miles quite comfortably are told they should only be running anywhere from half a mile to a mile barefoot to begin with they often don't listen and end up injuring themselves.

 

[Somnambulist]

Indeed. When you start running in minimalist footwear, you're also using a lot of muscles that were previously under-utilised. Thus it's important to start relatively from scratch, much like people who start going to the gym and injure themselves by overloading too quickly.

My litmus test for people to try is simply, go barefoot on some carpet, grass, whatever. Jump on the spot and you'll naturally avoid landing on your heels. Jump again and deliberately land on your heels... that's why you avoid it naturally lol.

Next, run down the room or across the garden barefoot and notice how you're doing it. Then put running shoes on and do it again. Staggering difference most of the time. Firm believer in flexible soles and zero-drop shoes with wide toe boxes. How close to barefoot you want to go is optional IMO, as obviously people's feet are generally soft and more broken surfaces require a little more protection. For running round your neighborhood you'd be surprised how little you need.