It is common to see products being marketed as being natural and the implication that because it is natural it has to be better for you. Whole professions are built around the natural being better claims. It is also common to see claims that different running techniques or forms being better for you as they are more natural (even though I can’t work out how they all can be natural!).
This is easily demonstrated as a false argument. Just because something is natural does not mean that it is better for you. There are plenty of natural things (eg arsenic; excessive UV light; snake venom) that are not good for you. There are also plenty of unnatural things (eg pharmaceuticals; flying in airplanes) that can potentially be good for you. So to argue to that something is better because it is natural is a well-known fallacy that is demonstrably false.
This does not mean what is being promoted or marketed as being natural is actually good for you or not, it just means to use the natural claim does not mean it is automatically better. Those running forms that claim to be better for you as they are natural are based on this fallacy. They may or may not be better for you – the use of the term natural, is just marketing hyperbole for the gullible.
To quote the late comedian, George Carlin:
The word ‘natural’ is completely meaningless! Everything is natural! Nature includes everything! It’s not just trees and flowers! It’s everything! A chemical company’s toxic waste is completely natural! It’s part of the nature! We’re all part of nature! Everything is natural! Dog shit is natural! It’s just not real good food!
It is also like the statement that many make often about things like, for example: “use the natural biomechanics of the body to run”. What is natural biomechanics? All biomechanics is natural!
To quote the Rational Wiki:
This explains why marketing managers love the meaningless word “natural” in phrases along the lines of “full of natural goodness” as they assume that customers will believe that anything that is “natural” is good for them
I would go as far as suggest that the more there is an appeal to “natural“, the more likely there is to be less evidence to support what is being marketed as being natural. It has been widely shown that those that promote quack remedies resort to the natural fallacy.
I go where the evidence takes me until convinced otherwise; and to claim something is natural is just woo marketing for the gullible.