Born to Run - A barefoot running book?

Barefoot Gentile

Barefooters

Apr 5, 2010

1,947

1,226

113

53

Fairfield, CT

Oct 21, 2011

#1

• Oct 21, 2011

• #1

I started running barefoot before "Born to Run" came out. Then I saw the book at my library having no clue what it was about. The book was excellent, but I found it had nothing to do with barefoot running, even though Barefoot Ted was a big part of the story. I get alot of "Born to Run" chants at races which is fine, but I want to yell back, it's not a book about barefoot running!



I saw a post by Caballo on facebook saying how misinterpreted the book has become, and the main focus of the book has been completely lost by Mcdougall's ever so turn to barefoot running, which I completely agree. I saw Mcdougall talk about "Born to Run" when the book first came out, and will say it was a great discussion, great history about the Tarahumara, and the natural human body and it's design to run. Now you hear Mcdougall talk and it's 90% barefoot, and it seems his whole tune of the book has changed. But you really can't blame him, barefoot running is the new the sliced bread.



I guess my point is I didn't see "Born to Run" as a barefoot running book.

 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

janson

Barefooters

Sep 21, 2011

280

133

43

Oct 21, 2011

#2

• Oct 21, 2011

• #2

I agree.  I thought Born to

I agree. I thought Born to Run was a great book, but it was not about barefoot running.

 

HairyBeast

Barefooters

Jul 19, 2011

32

1

8

Oct 21, 2011

#3

• Oct 21, 2011

• #3

I think that though barefoot

I think that though barefoot running is not heavily featured, the book is very anti- Nike ( and similar running shoes) in general. the antithesis of heavily padded and built up heel shoes is of course no shoes, so I think a lot of readers follow that train of thought into barefoot territory.

The cover (at least here in the UK) features a massive bare footprint so I certainly think there are seeds sown in the minds of readers.

 

Lomad

Barefooters

Sep 15, 2011

716

632

93

Oct 21, 2011

#4

• Oct 21, 2011

• #4

Yeah; I didn't see it as a

Yeah; I didn't see it as a "barefoot" book either. I was much more interested in learning more about the Tarahumara; I had seen bits and pieces on them here and there and BTR looked like a path to more info/understanding. I really took it as a love letter to running, with some science-y stuff shoehorned (sorry for the pun) in. I actually felt it was two separate books spliced together. The one, Chris's journey into the Copper Canyon, Caballo Blanco, Leadville, the big finale race etc. made for a great adventure narrative in the vein of Jon Krakauer's work. The other, with all the "modern shoe are bad mmmkay" stuff, while valid and agreeable to my ear, distracted from the rest of the book for me. I enjoyed reading it and learned stuff, but preferred the "story" side of the book more.



Full disclosure: I read this book during my bfr transition; it solidified my thinking that modern shoes were not helping me and probably were causing me more harm than good, but it didn't make me go barefoot. Having read it, I am prepared for all the "oh, barefoot, like that 'Born to Run' guy" conversations I invariably end up in nowadays...

 

Barefoot TJ

Administrator

Staff member

Mar 5, 2010

21,509

7,048

113

Oct 21, 2011

#5

• Oct 21, 2011

• #5

I agree that the book was not

I agree that the book was not focused soley (like that pun?) on barefoot running, as it holds many important topics.

I too was running barefoot and had established the Runner's World Barefoot Running forum (not as good as this place though, mind you ;-) before the book came out.

Nyal brought this subject up (kind of offended Ted a little, I think) and somehow Ted was either reading our site or someone turned him onto the discussion or he got a Google Alert on BTR, but he responded to it here: http://barefootrunners.org/forum-topic/born-run-h (Go to page 3).

I tend to agree with him, which is basically the same thing Hairy Beast said. Because it's so anti-shoe, the only conclusion we can come to is the opposite.

 

Barefoot TJ

Administrator

Staff member

Mar 5, 2010

21,509

7,048

113

Oct 21, 2011

#6

• Oct 21, 2011

• #6

Lomad, I actually really

Lomad, I actually really enjoyed reading about the science and history behind the running shoe. I learned a lot. The break that those chapters gave me made me long to read more about the actual story taking place within the book.

 

Lomad

Barefooters

Sep 15, 2011

716

632

93

Oct 21, 2011

#7

• Oct 21, 2011

• #7

Yeah, TJ; I enjoyed it as

Yeah, TJ; I enjoyed it as well, and would have likely read it as a stand alone volume (I roll nerdy that way). I totally get what you're saying about the crosses of the threshold breaking the book up and pacing it a bit. I'm too easily distracted though, and had to flip back andre-read the last thing I read before I could transition from adventure to science and vice versa. Technically, I guess I can claim I read it twice, lol! I in no way meant to dog the book. I loved it and have pushed it on many of my running friends. I just felt it had a bit of an identity crisis as a unified piece.



Or I've been writing for academic reasons too much in the last year and have become hyper-critical of everything. Take your pick

 

jackie hayes

Barefooters

May 10, 2011

69

0

6

Oct 21, 2011

#8

• Oct 21, 2011

• #8

I agree with this.  It's been

I agree with this. It's been pointed out before (probably multiple times) that the Tarahumara sandals are hardly thin, either.

 

skedaddle

Barefooters

Sep 3, 2011

1,244

2,066

113

Oct 22, 2011

#9

• Oct 22, 2011

• #9

I don't think the book was

I don't think the book was written to be black and white, but more an introduction to and idea.

Personally I’m more interested running the way that suits me, if I were to choose a running bible it would be Survival of the fittest by Mike Stroud and Sir Ranulph Fiennes.

I gained a lot from reading Born to Run though, it introduced me to minimalist running. I'm not a barefooter, if you lived where I do you'd understand why, so in my view there is always room for grey areas, purist thinking just alienates people and causes division. I think Christopher McDougall understood this and achieved a good balance, offering people ideas but leaving everything open to debate and further exploration.

 

Python4

Barefooters

Oct 5, 2011

31

0

6

Oct 22, 2011

#10

• Oct 22, 2011

• #10

While not specifically about

While not specifically about barefoot running, I think the book really was a great "primer" on natural running in general. whether you run bf or minimal, our general point of view in the BRS is natural running, and the trend away from "heel stomper" shoes that cost a lot and ruin your feet, etc. I mostly run in huaraches, but have been barefoot as much as possible since I was just akid. Most summers I barely touched a shoe. I think Born to Run has probably helped our overall cause a great deal.

 

findingflow

Barefooters

Oct 7, 2010

9

0

1

Oct 22, 2011

#11

• Oct 22, 2011

• #11

Born to Run may not be a

Born to Run may not be a barefoot running book per se, but it has done more than any other source to bring barefoot running into mainstream American consciousness.

Christopher McDougall has legitimized barefoot running - previously considered a "fringe" activity. Now it's up to us (in this group, and elsewhere) to continue to spread the word.

-unshod ashish