Become a Member

Get access to more than 30 brands, premium video, exclusive content, events, mapping, and more.

Already have an account? Sign In

Become a Member

Get access to more than 30 brands, premium video, exclusive content, events, mapping, and more.

Already have an account? Sign In

Brands

Events

A Different Take On Recent Barefoot Running Article

The editor of Canadian Running raises some doubts.

Get access to everything we publish when you sign up for Outside+.

The editor of Canadian Running raises some doubts.

Canadian Running senior editor Alex Hutchinson isn't buying a lot of Christopher McDougall's claims in his recent New York Times Magazine article.

Born to Run author Christopher McDougall’s recent article in the New York Times Magazine about barefoot running and minimalism has generated a lot of discussion on the various running-related bulletin boards. One contrarian response appeared on Alex Hutchinson’s Sweat Science Web site. In the article, Hutchinson, who is the senior editor of Canadian Running magazine, lists out three problems he has with it.

The first question he raises has to do with the purported science in McDougall’s article.  “I can’t really critique it, because there isn’t any science there — it’s all anecdote,” Hutchinson writes. He goes on to link to evolutionary biologist Pete Larson’s response to the article. Larson is quoted in the opening scene of McDougall’s piece.

“Larson’s cautious middle ground is probably not what you’d expect if you’d just read McDougall’s article without knowing anything else about Larson,” Hutchinson contends.

The second issue Hutchinson raises is W. G. George’s 100-up exercise, a century-old drill that McDougall suggests may be the “one true way” to develop perfect running form.

For More: Sweat Science