posted Aug-05-2005 03:39 PM               

Every racer I've trained in person I've taught to run at least 20% faster in less than an hour of training.

You can't just tell someone to "run faster." That doesn't apply to sprinters. If that were true everyone should be able to run a sub 4 minute mile. If any runner is at running at peak speed, higher speed is impossible unless they change their biomechanics.

Don't know much about swimming, but their energy output is phenomenal. They use far more muscles than a runner could dream of.

jrunner4

No, supination isn't "ideal." My questions were why the body does it. Babies use pronation to stand with the least amount of muscular coordination possible. However pronation slows a runner down.

The most biomechanically efficient runners neither pronate or supinate, they also don't swing their arms. If you have biomechanics as background, then tell me why we swing our arms? We call it a counterbalance arm swing dont we?

Therefore what's out of balance? So wouldn't the best runners in the world not need to swing their arms because they're perfectly balanced and therefore not wasting the energy to do it?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-06-2005 12:07 PM               

quote:

---

You can't just tell someone to "run faster." That doesn't apply to sprinters.

---

quote:

---

Don't know much about swimming, but their energy output is phenomenal. They use far more muscles than a runner could dream of.

---

quote:

---

As heartrate is a passive measurement to how much oxygen your body needs to function at any given speed, lowered heart rate is lower energy consumption.

---

[This message has been edited by hopper3011 (edited Aug-06-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Aug-06-2005 01:03 PM               

And as a certified track and field coach, I'm familiar with interval training. I'm referring to the limits of a race distance to simply improve speed. It's much easier to teach a runner how to run more efficiently and attain higher speed than slowly building speed ability through interval training.

If we took the same runner and only one week of training, I can teach them to run 20% faster in less than an hour. How long would it take you with interval training.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-06-2005 02:49 PM               

quote:

---

As heartrate is a passive measurement to how much oxygen your body needs to function at any given speed, lowered heart rate is lower energy consumption.

---

quote:

---

And with a balanced use of blood supply to all muscles to swim, the blood flow is much more uniform. Swimmers don't have to absorb 110 tons of bodyweight impact per mile of swimming.

---

quote:

---

If we took the same runner and only one week of training, I can teach them to run 20% faster in less than an hour. How long would it take you with interval training.

---

quote:

---

and in less than an hour of training

---

IP: Logged

posted Aug-07-2005 12:20 AM               

I agree with you.. Please don't think otherwise. I grew up with both parents being physicians, father being a cardiopulmonary specialist, so I know that I've screwed up trying to explain my perspective.

Swimming is a phenomenal total body sport and has extreme oxygen demands. Because it requires the oxygen levels necessary for the entire body to work, such sports actually allow the heart to work more efficiently and I think that's what you're pointing out. Each heart pump is transferring more oxygen distributed throughout the entire body.

So the lower heart rate compared with running as I think you're pointing out is contrast to the higher oxygen volume pumped for swimmers.

Because running's muscular demands are focused on the legs, the heart rate measurements are different in that regard. The oxygen flow is controlled by how much blood can flow through the leg muscles for the given energy output. It's a higher heart rate, but lower oxygen transfer level from the lungs. The lungs can supply the entire body while the legs don't need it... Do you agree?

My point was that for a runner, if a runner can run at the same speed using two different running techniques, and one technique requires a lower heart rate, then the legs are demanding less blood flow and thus demanding less energy to maintain the same speed.

Given that a runner decreases their natural energy needs using my running technique, I use that saved energy and apply it right then to accomplishing higher speed. I teach people to run 20% faster with the same heart rate compared to their previous peak speed heart rate. And the easiest way to do that is eliminate bodyweight impact as they run.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-07-2005 01:33 PM               

quick addition, inteval training as you stated can work, efficiency does work.... and I can do it in an hour while interval training takes weeks.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-08-2005 11:11 AM               

quote:

---

and I can do it in an hour while interval training takes weeks.

---

IP: Logged

posted Aug-08-2005 12:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:
Hopper,

quick addition, inteval training as you stated can work, efficiency does work.... and I can do it in an hour while interval training takes weeks.

---

Are you going to give away any of the info for free?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-08-2005 03:00 PM               

The Kenyan women have 85% weight transfer walking with the added weight as the article states. You walk (and run) with a 65% weight transfer efficiency. That measurement isn't an opinion, its science. The difference is a principle of physics called Relaxed Static Stability. And if you’re interested in learning a scientific way to increase your speed, then I can offer it. And the proof that you understand that principle of physics is that you run with no arm swing, no linear rise (natural running bounce in biomechanics or vertical force in coach speak), no torso rotation, or any lateral sway. If you don’t waste that energy, you can apply that biomechanic efficiency to higher speed.

And Biomechanically the women are simply less efficient because they need the weight to change the way they walk. In your appreciated doubt, I hope you can understand that I didn’t do this to study running, I studied how these women walk. My goal was to figure out how these women walk as efficiently as do. From there it was to develop a running technique that utilized the physics behind their walking efficiency without requiring added weight.

Fredurie,

The formula is simple. The definition of the perfect runner runs with a 1:1:1 ratio. Your body midline, the midline of the knees, and the midline of the feet, fulfill the variable measurements. Since math says the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, then the most biomechanically efficient runners run one foot perfectly in front of the other. In order to do that, you have to give up forward lean with rearward push, your mental focus has to be standing as upright as possible, and most important, PULL your weight.

I suggest you try this on a treadmill first at 3% incline or a wheelchair access ramp, or a hill with similar incline. Simply start walking slowly, but focus on leaning backwards while making sure that every step rolls your feet inward to get to the point of walking one foot perfectly in front of the other.

Pulling yourself forward will give you the ability to walk to centerline. And if you get that part, you’ll also notice that pulling yourself and rolling your feet inward and pull yourself onto your next step instead of swinging your leg forward, will completely get rid of the need to waste energy by pushing yourself upwards. Think lean back, pull forward, let yourself drop like your sitting a bit and you’ll find that will allow the legs to roll inwards a lot easier.

Try this walking and let me know what you think.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-08-2005 03:46 PM               

quote:

---

Relaxed Static Stability

---

quote:

---

And Biomechanically the women are simply less efficient because they need the weight to change the way they walk.

---

quote:

---

I studied how these women walk.

---

IP: Logged

posted Aug-09-2005 11:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:
Hopper,

Fredurie,

The formula is simple. The definition of the perfect runner runs with a 1:1:1 ratio. Your body midline, the midline of the knees, and the midline of the feet, fulfill the variable measurements. Since math says the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, then the most biomechanically efficient runners run one foot perfectly in front of the other. In order to do that, you have to give up forward lean with rearward push, your mental focus has to be standing as upright as possible, and most important, PULL your weight.

I suggest you try this on a treadmill first at 3% incline or a wheelchair access ramp, or a hill with similar incline. Simply start walking slowly, but focus on leaning backwards while making sure that every step rolls your feet inward to get to the point of walking one foot perfectly in front of the other.

Pulling yourself forward will give you the ability to walk to centerline. And if you get that part, you’ll also notice that pulling yourself and rolling your feet inward and pull yourself onto your next step instead of swinging your leg forward, will completely get rid of the need to waste energy by pushing yourself upwards. Think lean back, pull forward, let yourself drop like your sitting a bit and you’ll find that will allow the legs to roll inwards a lot easier.

Try this walking and let me know what you think.

---

Thanks.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-12-2005 04:36 PM               

I understand your perspective in trying to intimidate me into not writing, or posting. Well here's your story. Not everyone who is Kenyan lives in Kenya. I stated that I walked with these women, which I did. Only they lived in an apartment complex a few blocks from me and the mother and daughter carried their laundry on their heads to the laundramat down the street.

My question to them from watching them for months do this every week was, "So why do you carry your laundry on your head instead of out in front of you like everyone else?" The mother answered, "Because it's easier." That's all I had to go on.

I'm a mimic, that's the formal title of my field of science. I'm a biological mimic.So I followed them and watched them. It took me three years to figure out how these women walked, and why they walk the way they do. And I figured it out LONG before the article was published. The article of the Kenyan women was to give you someone else's measurements that these women are more efficient and proving I can mimic and teach others, hence the firefighter study I did, would be validation of my work for any reader questioning my logic.

And that's my sadness for individual like yourself. Since you can't argue my science, or logic, personal attack is the only way you can think you're superior. I encounter people like you every day, I get called crazy by people like you every day. The only people who attack personally are the ones who's livlihood I threaten.

If you want to attack me, then do it with science, do it with math, do it with biomechanic formulas. And since you can't then why don't you leave this post and let people who want to learn a more efficient way to run ask questions instead of listening to a runner who's opinion doesn't mean anything to me or those who are running again after their physicians told them that they'd never run again.

I have emergency room physicians as running students, orthopedic surgeons as students, physical therapists as students, and NBA coaches as students. I've been referred to in print as a genius. I've demonstrated my technique to, "running legend," Alberto Salazar, and even he can't disprove my running technique.

The article was to offer a different perspective to running than what others have written and I'm just offering for those who really want to improve their running technique, not to read blowhard opinions from people like you.

So until you can prove any student of mine discredits what I teach or that you know more about medicine or biomechanics than I do, you're wasting your time posting... Give me math, give me measurements, give me formulas, or go home.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-12-2005 05:12 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Aug-12-2005 05:22 PM            

Probably not. I wrote a thesis on endurance running and the evolution of early humans, and it turns out running and walking use very different muscle groups and in very different ways.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-15-2005 04:26 AM               

Yes, you're right in one respect. Humans walk with heel strike biomechanics, we run with midfoot or forefoot landings. The question I ask is why? If walking is more efficient with twice our bodyweight impact force, and we run with four times our bodyweight in impact forces, why did we develop the lesser efficient way to run?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-15-2005 08:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:
chowderstorm,

If walking is more efficient with twice our bodyweight impact force, and we run with four times our bodyweight in impact forces, why did we develop the lesser efficient way to run?

---

Simple! In evolutionary terms it was to escape from lions chasing us through the savanna. The efficient walkers were all caught & eaten, while the inefficent runners escaped.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-15-2005 01:27 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Aug-15-2005 02:00 PM               

quote:

---

chowderstorm,
Yes, you're right in one respect. Humans walk with heel strike biomechanics, we run with midfoot or forefoot landings. The question I ask is why? If walking is more efficient with twice our bodyweight impact force, and we run with four times our bodyweight in impact forces, why did we develop the lesser efficient way to run?

---

IP: Logged

posted Aug-15-2005 02:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
Ever see Salazar's running style. He lands at the very back
of his heel, with the foot at a 45 degree angle.

---

1 1 2:05:38 Khalid Khannouchi Ossining, NY 30 Flora London GBR 04/14/02
2 2:05:56 Khannouchi (2) Ossining, NY 30 LaSalle Bank Chicago IL 10/13/02
3 2:07:01 Khannouchi (3) Ossining, NY 28 LaSalle Banks Chicago IL 10/22/00
4 2 2:08:47a Bob Kempainen Minnetonka, MN 27 Boston MA 04/18/94
5 3 2:08:52a Alberto Salazar Eugene, OR 23 Boston MA 04/19/82 ********************************************************
6 4 2:08:54a Dick Beardsley Excelsior, MN 26 Boston MA 04/19/82
7 5 2:09:00a Greg Meyer Wellesley, MA 27 Boston MA 04/18/83
8 2:09:21u Salazar (2) Eugene, OR 25 Fukuoka JPN 12/04/83 *******************************************************
9 6 2:09:28a Bill Rodgers Melrose, MA 31 Boston MA 04/16/79
10 2:09:29a Salazar (3) Eugene, OR 24 New York City NY 10/24/82 **********************************************************
11 7 2:09:32 David Morris Albuquerque, NM 29 LaSalle Banks Chicago IL 10/24/99
11 7 2:09:32a Ron Tabb Eugene, OR 28 Boston MA 04/18/83
13 9 2:09:35 Jerry Lawson Jacksonville, FL 31 LaSalle Banks Chicago IL 10/19/97

IP: Logged

posted Aug-15-2005 05:32 PM            

quote:

---

In evolutionary terms it was to escape from lions chasing us through the savanna

---

It's funny, evolutionarily speaking, brain development has more to do with efficient distance running than does walking.

quote:

---

the best runners in the world not need to swing their arms because they're perfectly balanced and therefore not wasting the energy to do it

---

[This message has been edited by chowderstorm (edited Aug-15-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Aug-16-2005 04:49 PM               

The transition from walking and heel strike to midfoot and forefoot landing has merit along the evolution you state in our hunting history. However I took a different approach in that our transition relates to the power needs to accellerate. The biomechanics of power and escaping predators as you stated override the inefficiencies of running that way.

While men hunted, women gathered. And from their evolution to an efficient walking gait was what I was interested in.

As the women walk with no arm swing, it follows the same principles of aircraft design known as centerline thrust. This is an aircraft with one engine in front of the other. With no engines on the wings, should one engine fail, there is no rotational torque that a pilot has to be trained to counter.

Google airplanes Dornier 335 (the aircraft design patent) Burt Rutan's Voyager and Adams 309 or A500 or Cessna 337.

Humans in physics are no different. We constantly push off out of centerline and need to counter the rotational torque ( like counter rudder steer of a traditional airplane if one engine fails) of the hips. That energy is wasted.Which is why the first aircraft to fly around the world nonstop was a centerline thrust airplane. And why the women of Kenya learned to walk one foot in front of the other to carry the firewood. It doesn't waste energy

Walking and running one foot in front of the other utilizes the same physics of the airplane and offers the same efficiency advantages to humans.

With a parallel leg swing the arm swing counters the torque of the pelvis as you state. With centerline thrust, that torque rotation is gone.

It goes to the math that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. So why don't we walk and run one foot perfectly in front of the other? That's what the women from Kenya do, they walk with one foot in front of the other, maintaining centerline thrust and thus having no pelvis torque to counter.

Fredurie,

I have run with Salazar, and he does have a heel strike as you stated, but the rest of his biomechanics induces too much forward lean, which is a running style he follows. Since he runs Nike's "Oregon Program" he has yet to coach an Olympic Marathon winner, even with the unlimited funds of Nike. He can buy the best runners out there, which he's done, but he has yet to coach them to win medals

I'm curious if you tried the walking introduction I wrote?

Hopper,

I appreciate your questions, and your sarcasm, and your attitude. As I stated earlier, my students are surgery patients, many of whom were told by their physicians that they'd never run again. I teach them to walk, and then run with no knee pain, shin splints, or back pain.

Runners in pain are open to my work because it proves itself very easy, if I get rid of their pain, then they're willing to listen. They'll never win races, but if they can run again they're happy.

In coaching any good runner, I usually have to go through a coach who isn't exactly the friendliest to losing a student to me. They tell me that if my technique is so hot, then why aren't Olympic runners using it?

Well, Salazar is in charge of all Olympic runners, and why I can't get near them either, he can't disprove my work, so his reply is that Top Athletes (the ones HE coaches) don't need to improve and train someone to beat them. So I'm in the proverbial Catch-22... And why I'm here, to offer and find the runners willing to try what I teach and see where it takes them.

Oh, and the Office of Science and Technology has offered me a grant to train full time to compete and prove my technique in competition. However to get the money, I need Salazar's signature....

The following link is to one of my speed skating student Sandy Snakenberg, world record holder in endurance skating. What you'll see is that he doesn't use a counterbalance arm swing to skate either. He holds his hands in, "prayer position," for improved balance. Skaters reach speeds of 30mph on wheels, and 40mph on ice skates, so getting rid of counterbalance arm swing for them is an aerodynamic advantage and the first sport I created a new technique for.
http://www.speedsk8in.com/articles/feb2000/world-records.htm

go from there...I"ll look forward to your exchange

IP: Logged

posted Aug-16-2005 05:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:
In coaching any good runner, I usually have to go through a coach who isn't exactly the friendliest to losing a student to me. They tell me that if my technique is so hot, then why aren't Olympic runners using it?

Well, Salazar is in charge of all Olympic runners,

---

IP: Logged

posted Aug-16-2005 06:02 PM               

Nike, as corporate sponsor of most Olmpic events has clauses in their contract that all research shall be under their control. Even talking with USTAF biomechanics, Salazar won't even let them near any runners, let alone an individual like myself.

Salazar is a follower of high altitude training. NIKE has a custom house in Portland that has oxygen scrubbing equipment that can remove oxygen from the house to simulate high altitude training.

The runners NIKE sponsors, live at an artificially created 6-8000 ft altitude and only leave the house to run. None of his bought runners have won any major events with his training including any marathon events and he's been running this program for years.

He also follows a computer program that is a modified biorythem pattern. Since he was given the directive of Phil Knight to create a running team of caucasian athletes to take the marathon crown from the Kenyans, he's spent a lot of money over the past years, but has yet to show any success for it.

That's why I contacted him in the first place, to discuss the Kenyan women's connection. So we went running together.
However his word's were that he wouldn't "risk," allowing me access the the runners they sponsor after watching me run on a treadmill at their campus.

So I asked him, "Ok, so if I don't run like you, then I run differently. And if I run differently, then I can only run one of two ways; either more efficiently than you, or less efficiently than you. I don't expect you to understand why running this way is more efficient, but if you won't risk my teaching this, then tell me why it's less efficient."

Not only did he have no answer, he turned around and walked away. Salazar is the ultimate sports parent. Since he was sidelined with medical issues, he wants to be known as a "coaching legend" instead of the has been "running legend" which he no longer is. And since he hasn't succeeded, he's not going to let anyone else prove they know more.

With Nike's credit card, he's bought through sponsorship the top high school and college track talent. However he hasn't improved them, and doesn't want to admit it. He was great once, but his times are no longer record level. My question to him was quite simple, how can you teach anyone to be better than your best?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-16-2005 07:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:
Nike, as corporate sponsor of most Olmpic events

---

Nike was not the corporate sponsor of "most Olympic events". Sponsorship at the 2004 Olympics was divided into 3 categories: Grand Sponsors, Official Supporters, and Official Providers. Adidas was one of the Official Supporters -- not Nike. Mizuno was one of the Official Providers. Nike was not a sponsor under any of these categories. If you saw photos of the medal ceremony you noticed that Deena was wearing a jacket with the 3 stripes (Adidas). She had a Nike logo on her singlet because she represented the US (USATF), which does have an agreement with Nike. Deena is sponsored by Asics.

But my biggest problem is that you said Salazar was in charge of "all Olympic runners". I don't see how that can be true.

George Williams was the coach of the Olympic men's track and field team. Sue Humphrey was the women's coach. USATF is in charge of every aspect of selecting the Olympic team.

I know all about the Nike Oregon Project. If you search the Competitive Wire forum, I made reference to it in a topic I did. I understand the role that Alberto Salazar has with Nike with regards to that project. But that still does not make him in charge of "all Olympic runners". The runners in that development project, yes. But not all Olympic runners.

It's not a major issue, but I also disagree with this statement ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:
Since he runs Nike's "Oregon Program" he has yet to coach an Olympic Marathon winner, even with the unlimited funds of Nike. He can buy the best runners out there, which he's done, but he has yet to coach them to win medals

---

I believe that any follower of the sport would agree that he has not been able to "buy" the best runners out there. He has recruited good runners, but not the best. Yes, Dan Browne made the marathon team. But the Brooks-Hanson's runners had more top finishers at the marathon trials, and have had more success as a whole than Salazar's NOP runners.

But you seem to have neglected the very best -- Deena Kastor and Meb Keflezighi who won bronze and silver medals, and were coached by Joe Vigil and Bob Larsen respectively. Are you saying that Alberto Salazar was in charge of these runners too?

But as Hopper suggested earlier, this is changing the subject. So I'll let you two get back to discussing the aerodynamics of running.

P.S. I think that "has been running legend" did a pretty good job with Galen Rupp. Ever heard of him?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-16-2005 09:51 PM               

Galen Rupp. Ever heard of him?

Yea, he's a very natural talent who has Nike's blessing to be the next Univ of Oregon Prefontane, so Salazar is coaching him. And I give him credit for that. My point was to how much the altitude house and sponsorship have cost, that no Olympic medals resulted from it...

And from personal experience of running with Salazar, from our conversations, Rupp has the same running style that Salazar preaches and naturally follows. That's luck of the draw in my book. I look to see what he can do to find the runner's that haven't had top coaching.

There are a lot of good runners out there, that with training could be better than Rupp. That's my definition of a story. That to me is coaching.

I haven't followed a lot of running's athletes because my focus is working with injured runners. I find it unique how ignored they are by coaches. My students have ended up needing suregery because of what coaches have taught them. I find it interesting as to how many runners endure their pains from the coaching they receive and nobody ever claims credit for that. 70% of runners injure themselves in a given year, and that's the statistic I would like to change.

And from spending hundreds of dollars for chiropractors, massage therapists, $200 shoes, and surgery, still walk and run in pain. And no coach I've met has helped them until they offered me a chance to teach them a different perspective.

To find runners that have the strength and endurance to run with biomechanic inefficiency are the athletes that I prefer to work with. Anyone close to Rupp can be taught to beat him.

IP: Logged