Looky who's following us on Twitter!

Barefoot TJ

Administrator
Staff member
Mar 5, 2010
21,467
7,013
113
Looky who's following us on Twitter! Hee.
RWTwitterFollwer.png
For those who don't know, we've had a shout-out by them in the past (print and online):

Runner’s World: Is Less More? (October-online; November 2010 issue), Reporter-Bob Parks
 
  • Like
Reactions: Josh16
Its funny, they continuously post what we in analytics call 'conditioning articles', where their articles are search engine optimized to appear in searches about barefoot running and related topics, and cast doubt and fear on barefoot, even forefoot versus heel strike running.

They never go so far as to say heel striking in big stiff shoes (the kind they make all their advertising dollars from) is healthy and that barefoot running and fore/midfoot striking is bad, but they post articles siting pseudo science studies that that make it sound like the jury is still out, or that barefoot running is only for elite healthy runners (when in fact the opposite is probably true of the latter).

The thing is though, I think that Runner's World, while being a slave financially to the shoe industry, really cares about running and runners, so those kinda articles that they publish continuously online seem to have a feeling of conflicted-ness to them, like they are only really halfway committed to promoting something they know in their hearts, as all true runners do, is unhealthy.

I grew up reading and being inspired by Runner's World, and loved what I learned about running there, but, now, instead of being an ongoing source of info, information, and inspiration, they are largely a dis-appointment to me now that I found a healthier and better way to run.

Just my two cents.
 
Conflicted-ness. Half-committed. Haha. Spot on Steve! I like it :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Barefoot TJ
Its funny, they continuously post what we in analytics call 'conditioning articles', where their articles are search engine optimized to appear in searches about barefoot running and related topics, and cast doubt and fear on barefoot, even forefoot versus heel strike running.

They never go so far as to say heel striking in big stiff shoes (the kind they make all their advertising dollars from) is healthy and that barefoot running and fore/midfoot striking is bad, but they post articles siting pseudo science studies that that make it sound like the jury is still out, or that barefoot running is only for elite healthy runners (when in fact the opposite is probably true of the latter).

The thing is though, I think that Runner's World, while being a slave financially to the shoe industry, really cares about running and runners, so those kinda articles that they publish continuously online seem to have a feeling of conflicted-ness to them, like they are only really halfway committed to promoting something they know in their hearts, as all true runners do, is unhealthy.

I grew up reading and being inspired by Runner's World, and loved what I learned about running there, but, now, instead of being an ongoing source of info, information, and inspiration, they are largely a dis-appointment to me now that I found a healthier and better way to run.

Just my two cents.

My observations exactly and one of the reasons why we moved from there to our own home.