The Naturalistic Fallacy Fallacy (Part II)

In Part I, we saw how Nike and other running shoe manufacturers followed the Five Steps to Getting Filthy Rich by Subverting Human Evolution:

1. Find something that is a natural part of life—running, in this case.
2. Ignore the way our species has been doing it forever, as evidenced in the evolved design of our bodies, our innate appetites and aversions, the behavior of contemporary hunter-gatherer people, etc.
3. Convince millions of people that the way they’re doing it is all wrong and your product or service can help them do it right.
4. Ignore and/or hide the fact that your new and improved system is actually harmful because it arrogantly ignores evolved characteristics of our species, resulting in widespread injury and risk to great numbers of people.
5. Enjoy your profits!

Nike is far from alone in following these steps to financial success—they just followed the process spectacularly well—just like they teach in business school! We could just as easily call it the “No Backyard Chickens, Industrialized Farming Effect,” the “Unnecessary Caesarean Delivery on Friday so Your Doctor Can Golf on Saturday Effect,” the “Growing Marijuana is Illegal, Take These Pills Instead Effect,” the “Breastfeeding is Disgusting, Use Formula Effect,” or the “There’s One God and We’re His Exclusive Agents on Earth Effect.” Is it any wonder many of us feel we’re down a road that takes us ever further from ourselves?

Replacing something natural, healthful, and free with something that promises a lot but delivers mostly trouble is as old as civilization itself. It’s what keeps the gears of commerce spinning. As long ago as 1930, American business consultants were proudly explaining that “advertising helps to keep the masses dissatisfied with their mode of life, discontented with the ugly things around them. Satisfied customers are not as profitable as discontented ones.”

Chris McDougall is convinced far more people would go for a jog if we hadn’t all heard the horror stories about the chronic injuries that plague runners. So the damage goes far beyond the unnecessarily injured runners. “If more people ran, fewer would be dying of degenerative heart disease, sudden cardiac arrest, hypertension, blocked arteries, diabetes, and most other deadly ailments of the Western world.”

Apart from the health consequences to those scared away from running by all the injuries they see among those who do, runners who purchase expensive running shoes are wasting their money at best and hurting themselves at worst. Every year, between 65% and 85% of all runners suffer an injury, and there’s no evidence that running shoes offer any protection at all from such injuries. In a 2008 paper published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, Dr. Craig Richards showed that there was not a single evidence-based study demonstrating the protective effects of running shoes. In fact, a study by Dr. Bernard Marti suggested that runners in expensive shoes were 123% more likely to suffer injury than those in cheap shoes, and “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.”

What explains these additional injuries? We know that cushioned running shoes lead to injury by subverting the natural running gait, but why would the expensive shoes actually be worse than the cheap ones? It’s the protection that endangers us. When researchers at McGill University studied how gymnasts landed after a vault through the air, they found that thicker landing mats led them to stick their landings harder. The athletes were instinctively trying to slam through the cushioning to find stability. These researchers found that runners do the same thing, pushing down through cushioned shoes in search of a stable surface. “We conclude that balance and vertical impact are closely related,” they wrote. “According to our findings, currently available sports shoes ... are too soft and thick, and should be redesigned if they are to protect humans performing sports.”

Or maybe they should be abandoned altogether. Physical therapist Dr. Gerard Hartmann—a popular coach among elite marathon runners—puts it bluntly: “The deconditioned musculature of the foot is the greatest issue leading to injury, and we’ve allowed our feet to become badly deconditioned over the past twenty-five years. ... Putting your feet in shoes is similar to putting them in a plaster cast. If I put your leg in plaster, we’ll find forty to sixty percent atrophy of the musculature within six weeks. Something similar happens to your feet when they’re encased in shoes.” Dr. Paul Brand, chief of rehab at the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital in Carville, Louisiana makes the same point: “The barefoot walker receives a continuous stream of information about the ground and about his own relationship to it, while a shod foot sleeps inside an unchanging environment.”