Dougal's Reviews > Born to Run: The hidden tribe, the ultra-runners, and the greatest race the world has never seen

Born to Run by Christopher McDougall
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
2993027
's review

did not like it
bookshelves: 2011

I realise I'm in minority here but I really didn't enjoy this book at all. As a result of all the rave reviews I bought a copy for both myself and a friend - we were both hugely disappointed.

The author, Christopher McDougall, is an American magazine correspondent and this perhaps goes someway to explain a lot of what I didn't like about the book. To begin with, it is written in a totally 'omniscient' manner, ie McDougall can see inside everyone's head. This is excessive, continuous, and extends right across the board from events to which he was privy, through events to which he was not, on to imagined `eureka moments' of various research scientists. In a similar manner, he describes events from the past, where he wasn't present, in a way he clearly feels will paint some sort of picture: eg `Then she wiped her greasy mouth on her sports bra, burped up some Dew, and bounded off'. Maybe she did wipe her mouth on her sports bra, but it seems doubtful, and I feel quite sure she never gave him an account, years later, of her burp.

In a similar vein I confess that I didn't like the continuous use of words like `chomp' instead of `eat' and `chug' instead of `drink'. I imagine that is just a difference in usage when comparing opposite sides of the Atlantic but I did find myself wishing someone would just 'eat' something! And I do wonder if the use of block capitals as well as italics was really necessary. I am not talking about the start of each chapter but sentences like:
'...I remember thinking What in the HELL? How in the HELL is this possible? That was the first thing, the first CHINK IN THE WALL, that MAYYYBEE modern shoe companies don't have all the answers...' (nine of those lowercase words are in italics, which I can't format here).

So, we clearly have a very fictionalised account. But is any of it complete fiction? Well, yes it is. We are told on page 16 that the Tarahumara `barely eat any protein at all'. Well, with a physiology degree to back it up, I can tell you that leads only one way... to wasting and eventual death. It comes as a bit of a surprise then to be told on page 209 that `the traditional Tarahumara diet exceeds the United Nations' recommended daily intake [for protein] by more than 50 percent'. Perhaps by page 209 we are expected to have forgotten what he wrote earlier.

On page 157 we are told, in relation to qualifying for the Boston Marathon that `...99.9 percent of all runners never will...'. Really? And how was that figure arrived at? For any average runner who puts in training, qualifying for Boston (like me!) is not difficult: 20,000 runners run it every year -- not qualify, which will be many, many times more -- actually run it. The implication behind his figure is that only 1 in 1000 marathoners who would specifically like to qualify do, ie 19,980,000 don't, which is clearly rubbish. His misuse of percentages crops up several times. It is patronising to the reader to assume that he doesn't understand what a percentage means. And it makes one more than doubt when we are told figures like '...70 to 80 percent..'. A particular problem with this is that it sounds as if he is being authorative when, in fact, he's not.

His problem with Math(s) unfortunately isn't limited to the use of hyperbole with percentages. He unwittingly shows his problem, in typical journalistic style, in rather stark detail! On page 239, to work out how much older than 27 is an age that is equivalent to the increase in age from 19 to 27, he has to get out his notebook!!: `All righty. I flipped my notebook to a blank page and started jotting numbers. It takes....[I'll spare you the next four lines]...' He comes up with 36. Point made.

But it is the disingenuous nature of much of his writing that I really took exception to. I will give two examples:

One: who do you think ran the fastest?
(a) Page 15: `Lance Armstrong is one of the greatest endurance athletes of all time, and he could barely shuffle through his first marathon despite sucking down an energy gel nearly every mile.'
(b) Page 157: `...Ted...transformed himself...into...a barefoot marathoner with such speed that he was able to accomplish something that 99.9 percent of all runners never will: he qualified for the Boston Marathon.' [I've already talked about the 99.9 percent]
Answer: We don't know because we aren't told their times. Well, I can tell you: Lance Armstrong, by a long way. In 2006 his 'shuffle' resulted in a time of 2:59:36 and he came 868th out of 37,866 finishers; a brilliant result for a first marathon (and ten minutes under the very fastest age group Boston qualifying time)! And Barefoot Ted? In 2006 he completed the Boston Marathon in 3:20:16, coming in 3,848th out of 19,682 finishers. Not a shuffle either, but in a completely different, and slower, league. In fact, to refer to a result under three hours (faster than seven minutes a mile) as a shuffle is just gratuitiously insulting. McDougall seems to have a downer on Armstrong, as he slates him elsewhere in the book - the reason never becomes apparent.

Two: Why do you think `...Abele Bikila - the Ethiopian marathoner who ran barefoot over the cobblestones of Rome to win the 1960 Olympic marathon...' didn't wear shoes? - we are told this interesting fact in a paragraph about Barefoot Ted researching the benefits of barefoot running. Well, I can tell you, although the book doesn't, that it wasn't anything to do with the benefits of barefoot running. What we aren't told in the book is that Abele Bikila had an upset before the 1960 marathon and couldn't find a pair of shoes to fit and decided to chance running barefoot as he had trained that way; nor are we told that he chose to run in shoes at the subsequent 1964 Olympics.

On the subject of barefoot running, it's interesting that the photograph on the back of the hardback edition shows five runners, presumably principal characters from the book, all wearing running shoes.

Turning to the so called `scientific research' that McDougall is fond of reporting, again we must doubt a lot of what we are told. Why? Because it is presented in a way we can't trust. Yes, some of it may be true, but how much? And how much are we being presented with information that is propounded as fact or we are led to believe shows one thing, but may show something else? Just one set of examples will make the general point:
Page 170: `...no matter how much you run, your odds of getting hurt are the same.' This is utter rubbish and is clearly so, using reductio ad absurdum, apart from all the evidence to the contrary.
Page 171: `Is any shoe manufacturer prepared to claim that wearing their distance running shoes will decrease your risk of...injuries...[or]...improve your distance running performance?' No shoe manufacturer followed up the [Dr Richard's] challenge. The conclusion is drawn that `running shoes don't make you go faster and don't stop you from getting hurt..' This is absolute twaddle and I won't insult anyone's intelligence by explaining why.
Page 172: The conclusion that McDougall draws from a study that found that "Wearers of expensive running shoes...are injured significantly more frequently than runners wearing expensive shoes..." is the following: `What a cruel joke: for double the price, you get double the pain.' Possibly, possibly. Could it just be that the buyers of more expensive shoes are those runners who push the boundaries of their training more aggressively?
Unfortunately, the whole book is stuffed with this sort of biased writing dressed up as 'scientific fact'; we are used to it in the popular press -- we get a bookful here.

For those of you interested in the 'science', I recommend reading this: http://www.hfs-clinics.co.uk/blog/pod...

I could go on, about the very dubious anthropological details, nutrition and hydration anomalies etc, but I have written too much already.

The book is just an adventure story, fiction based on fact; enjoy it if you can stomach the style; just take everything with a very big pinch of salt!

[For anyone considering it, at the very least don't purchase the Kindle edition: there is a spelling mistake on the first page that doesn't bode well for the rest of the book (the spelling mistake is not there in the print edition).]

189 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Born to Run.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

December 6, 2009 – Shelved
January 16, 2011 – Started Reading
January 29, 2011 – Finished Reading
January 31, 2011 – Shelved as: 2011

Comments Showing 1-25 of 25 (25 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

Bruce Unlike you, I did enjoy this book, but I have to say, I find many of your criticisms of McDougall's casual hyperbole to be spot-on.


message 2: by Todd (last edited Apr 01, 2014 02:05PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Todd Johnson I agree with most of this, except the bit about it being easy to qualify for Boston. I know a bunch of dedicated runners who consider it pipe dream. I know of at least one person (the author of this magazine piece http://grantland.com/features/richard...) who made it his single purpose for two years and failed to do so.

Tremendous congratulations to you on doing so, and I agree that "99.9%" is clearly pulled out of McDougal's rear end, but it's not a trivial thing by any stretch.


message 3: by Tan (new) - rated it 2 stars

Tan Bee I dont really enjoy reading this book though it is highly recommended by my colleague. Being an asian, it is difficult to grasp the confusing terms and jargons scattered in the book. In fact, i am getting more sceptical as i move on each page with a huge grain of salt.


message 4: by Tan (new) - rated it 2 stars

Tan Bee I find it very disturbing for the competitive freaks runners to rival the tarahumarans. Are they jealous of the super running ability of these tribesmen? Why do they need to goad the sequestered runners to partake in the race? The book delves too much in winning a marathon or race. They seem to be obsessively enjoying running under a veneer of pushing one harder to pip others.


Eleanor Thank you for articulating the things that bothered me about this book!


Shelley I just enjoyed the story versus wanting to rip it apart page by page.


Shelley I just enjoyed the story versus wanting to rip it apart page by page.


Diana THANK YOU! This book is terrible. I bought it after multiple people recommended it to me and have struggled through every page. This guy has no idea what he is talking about and cares only about informing the reader about his stupid diet and "transformation" and backing it up with a bunch of cherry-picked pseudo-scientific "facts". I am just glad someone else hated this idiotic book as much as I did.


Michael Grace I'm a little over halfway, and I agree with everything you said. On top of all of that, I've caught at least two instances of poor grammar and one "could care less" when the implied sentiment was clearly "could not care less." I may give this two stars just because I found at least a few bits of interesting information or storytelling, though I now doubt their validity. Maybe I made the mistake of reading this immediately after David Halberstam's The Breaks of the Game.


message 10: by Anya (new) - rated it 3 stars

Anya P Great commentary, thanks! it surely starts feeling like a fiction story very quickly where the "scientific" facts act as a filler rather than source of knowledge.


Ram1891 Great commentary, thank you! I quite like this book, but I like more is the truth. I will keep trying to figure out how to run without hurt myself, I know my cardio is ready, my muscles are ready, but my joints these are my weak points.


Laurent Excellent review, I agree and was frustrated by everything you say. The book's bias and agenda are irritating.


message 13: by Roman (new)

Roman Stadtler Dougal, what running books do you recommend? I'm not a runner, not even sure I could become one at my age (47), but it's always had an allure and I'd like to learn more, in general. The mechanics, history, spiritual side, everything.


message 14: by Ilkim (new)

Ilkim You got me at 'using reductio ad absurdum'... Okay, I won't buy it then, I'll just call from the public library.


message 15: by Heidi (new)

Heidi Thank you for writing this.


Zaheer Hoosain Having read "Bad Science" a month ago, and being a very fact based person, this book is frustrating to read and I'm only 4 chapters in. I was wondering the same about Lance Armstrong as I know some really strong cyclists who have made the transition to road running very successfully.

Thank you for your review; I will read the rest of the book as a novel


message 17: by Alba (new) - rated it 3 stars

Alba I loved the book but also your review! Keep it up!


message 18: by Ameer (new)

Ameer Hamza Asif The review seems very honest. I was planning to read it but I think I would rather read some other book on running than this one. Thanks!


James Chally I think you missed the point of this book which is to rediscover the joy of living by getting back to what some believe is our evolutionary roots. While some of your criticism is valid I think it is taken a little out of context of the authors intent in using it. There is certainly a compelling argument for the running man evolutionary theory although I readily admit I have not read the scientific literature on this topic nor do I intend to. I did not get the impression he is advocating for barefoot running as you suggest but rather to change the way we run. This is pretty clear as ‘barefoot Ted’ is the butt of most of his jokes in the latter part of the book. Also the author isn’t running barefoot. I agree it’s not as cut and dry as the author presents it, but your scathing critique of some the minor details feels very self serving.
Anyway, congratulations on your physiology degree and Boston marathon qualifying time as we were all very curious. Here is a soft golf clap and medal to pin on your chest (soft clap/medal)


Stephen Kraus I enjoyed your thoughtful review. I also thoroughly enjoyed the book. I think your criticism is valid. However I still found the overall message and information contained in the book to be extremely worthwhile, interesting and well executed.


Alexis Hope All this aside did reading the book not make you wanna get up and go for a run? This book inspired me. Ran my first marathon this year with more in the pipeline.


message 22: by Ajit (new) - added it

Ajit Pardeshi Dougal versus Dougall, sounds like.


Warren Beal I agree with your review.


message 24: by Karen (new)

Karen Thanks for articulating why the book irritated me.


message 25: by Olivia (last edited Oct 09, 2019 12:09AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Olivia The book is a fairy tale with no science facts to underpin its thesis. Your review is spot on.
I can only think that the author was trying to write a pep talk for new or runners or make money out of a fantasy.
I am runner and a slow one, lower than average to say the list and the pep talk really does not resonate with me.
Shuffling down your throat what less than .0001% of the running population can achieve (all those achievements of people who were not providing their accounts first hand, written in hyperbole and lacking facts and science) does not pump u up to go out and kill urself over by becoming a drinking machine, cheeta that thinks sleep, training and taking care of yourself is overrated.

No one wakes up one day and become an ultramarathoner and smashes records by smiling and just slightly wanting it.

it all takes hard work, consistency and a lot of science behind.

Apologies but the fairy tale is utterly disgusting


back to top