Interesting NY Times Christopher McDougall Article on the Running Industry

Say what you want about Born to Run, whether you consider it gospel or great storytelling "based on a true story", it has put running and more specifically minimalist running right on the map.  Dead center.  A lot of that attention can be attributed to the success of the book, but much of the engine behind the movement lies in outreach, case study research, and general discussion of the topics.  So when I came across this article yesterday, I was interested to see what else McDougall had to say.

While I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of the title of the story, "The Once and Future Way to Run", I think he once again tells a great story and sheds some more interesting light on the industry.  The story is long, but I strongly recommend reading it, as it hits on multiple angles - both the industry and running form.  I'll address each one below.

On industry, we have no specific way to validate all the facts as they are laid out, but it is one heck of a story.  Whether it is the anecdotes of Dr. Mark Cucuzzella being scoffed at, at the Boston Marathon by big shoe industry leaders for praising the benefits of natural running style, or the idea that a single study done in the 80s by Benno Nigg contributed to the mass development of built up, motion control shoes as a means of "fixing" our natural gait (despite Nigg much later stating that he believed that thought process was a mistake), or of the lack of a honest shoe review in magazines such as Runner's World due to a grading system that essentially gives everyone an "A" - he covers a lot of territory in a single article.  And all them are valid arguments that merit further discussion and consideration when looking at where running is headed into the future.

On running form, we go back to the basics - recounting an exercise called 100-upping that was developed in the 1800s.  As basic as it sounds, it rings true as something all of us should probably be doing today as part of our regular routines.  Practicing form and balance is something we all need to do and this exercise is certainly one way to do it.

But this is where I think the article goes a little off, IMO.  If history is any indication, there is no SINGLE solution to anything.  And despite McDougall's claims that this might just be the "smoking gun" we are all looking for, it isn't.  It is one exercise that incorporates many elements of what properly learning to run should be.  But he is definitely spot on with this:

"Learn to run gently, and you can wear anything. Fail to do so, and no shoe — or lack of shoe — will make a difference."

So what say you?  Have a read through the article and let me know what you think.


PS - there is also a good video associated with the article explaining the 100-up drills so you see exactly what it entails.

Like Running With a Parachute and Pulley

The title probably doesn't quite make sense right off the bat here, so let me explain.  In high school track, we used to do some drills late in the season to both build power, focus on form, and increase our top end speed.  For some of these drills, we'd use parachutes attached to a belt around the waist and run 100m sprints down the track, while the parachutes would create extra resistance and allow us to focus on technique.  Obviously, these were the form and power component of the drills.



The other drill we'd do was one in which a bungee system was attached to one person at one end of the track and one person at the other end.  By having the person pull the other, it would create the effect of forcing the person being pulled to run faster than their natural legs would have them go.  The idea was to give the body a new stimulus of running faster than it is used to, stimulating your nervous system to adjust to the new speeds.  These were short (maybe 50m), but pretty effective.



Anyways, the reason I am describing these drills is because I experienced something similar to that effect while running with Tucker yesterday.  Most of the time, he generally runs within 1 ft of me, so there is minimal tension on his leash and we are both going about the same pace.  But occasionally, this ratio gets flipped upside down.  In some cases, he's like a rock I am dragging around (not that I am forcing him to do anything, its just that he needs a little encouragement to keep up!) and in others, he's like a bolt out in front of me and pulling me along.

So I've come to the conclusion that either of these scenarios isn't necessarily a bad thing for my running.  If he is behind me, I am building strength by having a bit of extra force pulling me in the other direction, so I can focus on form and driving my legs (especially on hills).  If he is out in front, he forces me to run a bit faster than normal, but with reduced effort since the force of him pulling me encourages faster running, which has a similar nervous system effect as the bungee drills.

Makes me wonder why I didn't have a dog to run with for all these years...man's best friend, right?