born to run essay

McDougall used logos, the persuasive appeal to the reader’s sense of reason and logic. He provided research studies and statistics to support his argument that running companies were the cause to running injuries, not the “cure-all” they advertised. “In a 2008 research paper for the British Journal of Sports Medicine, Dr. Craig Richards, a researcher at the University of Newcastle in Australia, revealed that there are no evidence-based studies-not one- that demonstrate that running shoes make you less prone to injury” (McDougall 121). Studies linked Achilles, knee, and feet injuries to the creation of the athletic shoes developed by Nike. With clear awareness of the excoriating pain and soreness the shoes were causing to athletes, Nike continued to be the dominating sales brand in the sports-wear market. “Part of a Nike rep’s job is getting feedback from its sponsored runners about which shoes they prefer, but that was proving difficult at the moment because the Stanford runners all seemed to prefer… nothing” (McDougall 169).

McDougall also references the physical and cultural history of humans as logical reasoning for his argument. Our human ancestors used to run as a means for survival. “You ran to eat and to avoid being eaten; you ran to find a mate and impress her… you had to love running, or you wouldn’t live to love anything else” (McDougall 93). If people millions of years ago could survive without shoes, it is good reason to believe people today could too. “As far back as 1976, Dr. Brand was pointing out that nearly every case in his waiting room- corns, bunions, hammertoes, flat feet, fallen arches- was nearly nonexistent in countries where most people go barefoot” (McDougall 177). Studies proved that runners who trained barefoot had less injury than those with more expensive shoes. Ironically enough, studies proved the more expensive the shoe, the higher the risk of injuries. “The 1991 report in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise found that