posted Aug-26-2005 10:28 AM            

I have some questions for you.

You are basically saying you can increase run speed by 20%. From what I have read on your articles and posts. You are saying you have:
-- taken a runner and determined a typical running pace lets call that pace X

--taught them your technique-pulling rather than pushing

-- put them back on a treadmill test and have seen a comfortable pace at X - 20%

This I can accept. But we are talking about a few minute test here. Thus my question.

Q. How sustainable is this technique over long distances? Do you believe someone can actually run 26.2 more efficiently?

Q. I saw your video of your rowing technique in a google search, do you have a video of this running technique? I guess I am wondering if it is really that different. Are we just talking about a more upright posture here?

[This message has been edited by Dubya (edited Aug-26-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Aug-26-2005 03:20 PM               

I already asked Victor early on if a video post is possible because I know that without visuals, this is going to be hard to comprehend. He hasn't responded yet, but I am working to make one as I so write. And no it’s not simply an upright running posture at all, and a video will document what my technique looks like.

Hopper,

The purpose of the firefighter study was to reproduce how the women of Kenya walk. As the New York Times article stated, a traditional walker can’t walk with any added weight without increasing their heart rate. The firefighter study was simply to prove that I do know how these women do it.

Weight transfer efficiency is what defines the science behind what I’m doing, and why a runner’s heart rate drops for running at the exact same speed. How much energy is utilized to transfer bodyweight to their next step is what they do better than you. These women walk more efficiently period.

And per the article, none of the biomechanics quoted know how they do it and prefer to think of it as a “sophisticated process.” It’s really not. And it relates to my reply to Victor.

Victor posted a fantastic link from Muybridge to walking of Ostriches, which run with parallel leg form, but no linear rise. The following videos of men walking carrying the buckets shows pushing upwards with each step. The women of Kenya don’t push themselves up.

And the naked woman proves an important point to me. If you watch the front view of her walking, you can see that her left foot is a perfectly straight forward push while her right foot is turned out and you can easily see her inside step.

Those two motions are therefore unequal as viewed. And if you look closely at each video no two legs are working in equal motion if you watch the forward view videos. The side views show what seems to be identical motion, but that simply isn’t true. Most coaches don’t factor that in their coaching, but I do. The video Victor posted is a fantastic reference for me and with that I thank him.

The woman is right handed. She’s decreasing the skeletal efficiency of her stronger leg to match the forward propulsion of her weaker left leg. And the two unequal motions of her walking is what I studied. If you saw the same biomechanics in a runner today, you’ll also see that the right leg usually has a knee band wrapping it.

That imbalance is what your arm swing counters.

Victor,

The horse quote “Were the ponies most efficient at certain walking, trotting, and galloping speeds because those were the speeds they repeatedly practised, or were they somehow gravitating toward the ‘locked-in’ paces which were naturally most economical for them, given their innate physiology and anatomy? We simply don’t know, “

Well that’s very true, each species has a natural gait pattern and why a Paso Fino is the most comfortable breed to ride with it’s high turnover rate, but can’t win the Kentucky Derby.

The article of running economy you posted was accurate and I take that into consideration. Where we part company is that in order for the Achilles tendon to stretch, represents the heel stretching upon foot strike. What the author doesn’t mention in his article is the problem called Achilles Tendonitis. That’s one of the reasons coaches preach rapid turnover instead of pushing maximum stride length. Shortening the stride length limits Achilles tendon stress loads due to decreased linear rise of high turnover limits. It’s the most comfortable way for a human to run. I don’t teach running for comfort, I teach running for speed.

If one wants to remove the stresses to the Achilles tendon naturally, then train barefoot. Which is why I walk and run with the NIKE FREE shoe.

Most shoes are stiff in structure and put greater strain on the Achilles tendon by forcing the ankle joint to work more like a door hinge. Reducing that impact force to the Achilles tendon by increasing the cushioning ability of a shoe’s heel has been the focus of most shoe technology focus for over 30 years as their solution to poor shoe design. The cushion is designed to reduce the stresses of stretching the Achilles tendon and aiding in the start of the rebound push off.

The Free shoe allows the entire muscle structure of the foot to absorb the impact as it’s designed to do. Free shoes integrate more muscles of the feet if you want to train in the most natural form your body is designed to run with.

When an earlier post stated that we walk with one distinguished process of biomechanics and run with another set of biomechanics, he posts the problem that the women of Kenya solve..

Humans walk with a heel strike and measure twice our bodyweight in impact forces. The transition to running and a mid/forefoot strike doubles the impact forces of walking. And that four-six times our bodyweight impact forces of bodyweight is accepted.

But pulling your weight is that your walking gait is a heel strike and your running gait is also a heel strike. So the entire tendon spring perception doesn’t apply to me. Your calf muscles and Achilles tendon aren’t used to absorb impact forces at all. So in the running process they’re only used once for higher output in push off instead of twice as a mid/forefoot impact strike demands.

In running with a heel strike, there is no stretch to the Achilles tendon at all. And you’re also not pushing yourself up either. So there is no energy wasted in pushing yourself up. That’s where the heart rate drop comes from. It’s a much more efficient because you can walk and run with a heel strike motion and thus your natural forward momentum is maintained and why the women walk so efficiently. They don’t push themselves upward at all with each step unlike the naked man carrying buckets video. So the weight loads they carry don’t require the additional energy because they don’t need it in forward motion as you do.

And by running in pulling motion, your heel strike is in front of your natural center of gravity which is why the hamstrings are integrated with greater efficiency, and once again why the cheetah observation you made was correct.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-26-2005 04:18 PM               

quote:

---

The firefighter study was simply to prove that I do know how these women do it.

---

IP: Logged

posted Aug-26-2005 09:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:
I already asked Victor early on if a video post is possible because I know that without visuals, this is going to be hard to comprehend. He hasn't responded yet, but I am working to make one as I so write. And no it’s not simply an upright running posture at all, and a video will document what my technique looks like.

---

Hi Robert,

Sorry, I thought I had responded to your video request, but I checked my emails and it seems that I didn't. Send me what you got and I'll see if I can get it posted. No promises, I've never posted video before so I don't know what is involved.

Victor

------------------
www.competitiverunner.com

IP: Logged

posted Aug-26-2005 09:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:
If one wants to remove the stresses to the Achilles tendon naturally, then train barefoot. Which is why I walk and run with the NIKE FREE shoe.

---

But Robert, that just doesn't make sense to me. Most running shoes, including the Free, have a built up heel. When you run barefoot your heel is lower than it would be with shoes since it is not supported by a wad of foam and gel. With a lower heel the tension on the Achilles tendon would increase relative to the higher heel. I do run a few miles each week barefoot, weather permitting, and do most of my remaining miles in flats or lightweight trainers. I do this because it allows me to take advantage of the energy stored in my Achilles tendon and in my calf muscles.

Victor

------------------
www.competitiverunner.com

[This message has been edited by VictorN (edited Aug-27-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2005 01:26 PM               

The firefighter study was basis for an article for Runner's World. The following quote was from one of their staff writers who I taught to have approval to even write the article.

"then jogging slowly, then up ever-increasing grades, topping out at 11%. the motion itself looks like a sort of cross between running and race walking. it felt awkward at first, of course, as you have to override all that motor neuron wiring from decades of conventional push-off running. gradually, it
felt more comfortable and i have to say at that on the steep stuff, it was noticeably easier to move along than it was running the usual way. at 11% grade at about an 11-minute pace (i think), i switched off every 20 seconds for a couple of mnutes. it took noticeably less effort to move uphill his way than the usual way; there was an effort difference on the flat, too, i went in skeptical, but have to admit that it was an interesting
experience, something to think about. apparently, he's working with some race horse trainer in vancouver and they're collaborating on the story."-Doug Rennie Runner's World staff writer.

The article was to be about adapting treadmill training techniques for horses to humans.

It was also for a more detailed piece that was sent to Biomechanic Journal. Neither published it.

The study itself consisted of 10 volunteers with their basic gear. I measured their walking heart rate on a treadmill at the same speed for all of them with no added equipment.

After all measurements, I took them off the treadmill and taught them to walk pulling their weight forward with their equipment on. They helped me choose a gear package equivalent to what the Kenyan women carry in ratio. They then went back on the treadmill and I coached them to walk at the same speed and measured their heart rate.

All of the ten were able to walk with a lower heart rate than first measured. Of them, seven were able to walk at the exact same heart rate with the added weight as without.

It isn't where they carry their weight, because the torso can adjust to it. The difference is merely that they're pulling their weight which means they walk with a heel strike and don't push themselves upwards as I posted. As long as you don't need to push yourself up, how and where you carry your weight is irrelevant.

Victor,

I thought that your dismissal was that your site couldn't publish it. Thanks for the invite

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2005 02:56 PM               

quote:

---

It was also for a more detailed piece that was sent to Biomechanic Journal. Neither published it.

---

IP: Logged

posted Aug-29-2005 04:50 PM               

Wanna reread the New York Times article of different tribal women?

Biomechanic Journal is a great open source of research, as magazines are quicker in publishing than any classroom textbook could dream of. Oh, and hopper, that was why at the age of 19 I was the marketing director of a Portland hospital instead of taking "blotto beer" case study marketing classes.

When you can read New England Journal of Medicine or Journal of American Medical association, gives you perspective of medicine and why even larger companies such as Weiden and Kennedy (Agency for NIKE, Subaru and the like), couldn't put together a proposal that competed with a stupid idiot like myself and my partner....

What were you doing at 19 anyway?

At the time I was reading $5000 a year of over 150 different magazine titles for free! And it seemed a waste of time before a $3.95 magazine article came up three years later in a $395 business course college credit.

Any running magazines reference this article yet?

http://www.biomech.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=163106201

So the running dominance of African runners may be beyond the scope that even I envisioned.

The whole shoe question can be summed up in the following articles of what research the shoe industry already knows about shoes. The more expensive of shoe, the slower you run and the more likely you are to injure yourself.

So while all shoes have shock absorbing materials, for me, it’s a lesser of two evils situation. I would choose the least amount of material underneath your feet, as well as the least amount of stiffness to allow the most natural movement. And for that the FREE shoe is fantastic.

http://www.biomech.com/db_area/archives/1998/9804matrls.47-55.bio-.html

http://www.biomech.com/db_area/archives/1998/9810coverstry.16-22.bio-.html

“The hamstring muscle group consists of the semitendinosus and semimembranosus muscles medially, and the biceps femoris laterally. Of these, the biceps femoris is the most commonly injured.1 The injury often occurs at the musculotendinous junction during eccentric contractions, defined as when the muscle increases tension while extrinsically lengthening.2 This is also known as a ‘deceleration contraction,’ that is, the muscle is resisting a lengthening force in an effort to stop the limb from further motion. An example of a deceleration contraction is the contraction of the quadriceps muscle on foot strike. The knee flexes to absorb the shock of stance, and the quadriceps contracts as the knee flexes in order to prevent collapse of the leg. As the knee flexes and the quadriceps contracts, it simultaneously lengthens, exposing it to both the force of muscle contraction and the force incurred while resisting the flexion. The combination of these intrinsic and extrinsic forces exposes the muscle-tendon unit to the highest risk of injury.”2

The above quote is my definition of preparatory contraction impact and why runners injure themselves. I find it interesting that people can post that no such muscular activity occurs simply because coaches and runners don’t study it. That's why getting flamed for writing about it is an interesting view of human psychology to me.

http://www.biomech.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=51201058

Stretching is another area whereas articles are continuously published by writers and nobody is even allowed to argue any opposite perspective. Stretching doesn’t prevent injury, better biomechanics does.

http://www.biomech.com/db_area/archives/2000/0010sports.59-68.bio-.html

The other aspect of running shoes and wasted money is the orthodics. The above is a little more authority to the fact that neither motion controlling shoes, and that orthodics don’t alter our natural biomechanics. They drug their users through comfort to think that they’re worth the expense, but they're only applicable to a rare few for improvement. For the vast majority of runners, they simply don't protect anyone from injury.

http://www.biomech.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=163106205

Want to get into ACL issues? The following gives you a formal description of how “quad dominance plays a role in developing ACL tears. Oh, and the article postulates neuromuscular training to protect the knees. Please reread the quote from Doug Rennie… Not to mention your cheetah analysis.

http://www.biomech.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=164301620

Hopper,

And you want to know why my perspective doesn’t get published in running magazines? I think the above pretty much documents that my world is a complete contradiction to what the running industry forces you to swallow. And while you’ve been force fed their hype, publishing anything contrary isn’t in their financial interest.

After Rennie’s reference, I was told that in order to do a story, I would have to teach my technique to the staff themselves. Only after putting myself at Rodale’s doorstep, I did teach Runner's World staff my technique in Pennsylvania. I was offered to write the article with the condition that my perspective would have better meaning to readers if my piece was about runners besides myself for credibility.

That’s where the heart rate drop I posted earlier came from. The editor then told me that it was a fluke, and had to be repeated.

So I got the firefighter group together for maximum writing impact. And I did it prior to 9/11.

I was then told that the test group wasn’t large enough. So in response I asked him how many people would be necessary to be a conclusive group for him. I'm still waiting for the answer, because I'll gladly do a study as large as he likes…

So being told to chase an elusive answer puts that perspective in better light to me.

Think about it…

Magazine editors that also write books and conduct running clinics under their magazine bannerhead locks up what running advice you read. Rodale press is the strongest name in sports publishing, so that was why I went after EITHER writing, or in name of being a lousy writer, it was also a request if any of their writers would be interested in doing the story.

If a magazine editor has his reader’s interest and personal improvement intrusted, then anyone with writing ethics would also view publishing books as well is a conflict of interest. Since anyone without ethics can't offer you advice or perspectives that would impact their book sale income, then my rejection isn’t an issue to me.

And you know what? Because my views are so radically different, people like Victor are like rare diamonds to me. I have to go through at least a hundred people to find the ones that are willing to even listen to the idea that a better way to perform a sport even exists, regardless of what sport I'm in.

Even if he didn’t believe my perspective, Victor was willing to put it out for you and others to read. Something running magazines won’t do. For that, I can’t thank him enough for taking that risk. And being criticized goes with the territory, so for that I can only thank you for helping keep this post at the top of the subject chart.

For me, I appreciate you asking any question and challenge me anyway you’d like, but what I wonder is why haven’t you simply tried it for yourself and grab a good sized phone book or something and try walking and pulling your weight?

By the way did you google dinosaurs+soft tissue yet? As you postulated it was improbable, then I hope you enjoy the stories of the event and maybe learned something.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-29-2005 06:57 PM               

Everything else I've brought up the posted article links cover....

Did you read one of them?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-29-2005 08:05 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Aug-29-2005 08:17 PM               

The problem I am having with this thread is that as soon as somebody refutes one of your arguments, you head off in a completely different and unrelated direction, without even a “my bad.” It is like somebody just did a brain dump of miscellaneous thoughts into this thread. I was hoping that hopper's last post would be the last of this thread, but alas it was not.

So Sue, unless you want to keep this thread going, I suggest it might be time to put a lock on it.

Victor

IP: Logged

posted Aug-30-2005 03:16 AM               

What I had hoped to get across is that we have a lot more in common with a lot of other runners on this planet and the women of Kenya have discovered that connection as well.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-30-2005 04:10 AM            

That being said though, let me try to add my thoughts. Disregarding the Kenyan women, wood planks and all of that random info and crap, sports jester is teaching what Pose (Dr. Ro...) and Evolution Running (Ken Meirke) have been preaching for years. If you are a heel striker, your body is hardly in a balanced position, does not take advantage of the body's natural absorption system (bof, calves, achiles, etc), and utilizes the weaker muscles in the legs ( mostly quads and hams vs mainly glutes with less hams).

With regards to efficiency, think about this. If you have been an elite runner for 10+ years, chances are any improvements to your engine will be hard to come by, let alone any significant improvements. Wouldn't it be worth your time to see if you're running at maximum efficiency? For cycling, there's always talk about pedaling in a circle, to make sure that there are no dead spots in your technique. In swimming, hell, it's ALL about technique. Why should your approach to running be significantly different?

I think there's some truth in what sports jester has said beneath some of the bs. At the same time though, I think it's safe to say all of the detractors do not want to see the slightest truth in what he's saying.

Btw, imo, no, efficient walking does not aid in efficient running.

I'm a cpa, not a licensed medical doctor, chriopractor, physical therapist, trainer or whatever. Like all of you, I'm interested in finding the best way to accomplish my athletic goals. If there's something out there that can help me get there quicker and with a lesser chance of injury, I owe it to my body to at least listen and give it some thought.

Happy running

IP: Logged

posted Aug-30-2005 07:55 AM               

Sports jester is promoting a lean-back-land-on-your-heel-and-pull stride, not a lean-forward-land-on-your-forefoot-and-push stride, which I believe you are suggesting is more efficient and balanced.

Victor

IP: Logged

posted Aug-30-2005 08:06 AM               

quote:

---

And you want to know why my perspective doesn’t get published in running magazines?

---

IP: Logged

posted Aug-30-2005 08:47 AM            

quote:

---

If you really want people to try your technique, then draw up a truly trenchant exposition and publish it

---

In the meantime, a simpler thing to do would be to accept the limitations of the internet. Just say,

It's difficult to explain this concept over the internet. And even more difficult to prove. If you're ever in my area, drop by and I'll be glad to go over it with you. In the meantime, it's something for you to think about. You have my email address. Feel free to ask questions. I'll do my best to answer them.

Then move forward.

Edited to add, he said it himself:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:

How far do you live from Portland Oregon? I'd gladly give you an hour in person and show you why 20% faster is easily viable. If I can teach you to walk 20% faster, running 20% faster is easy.

---

It has to be demonstrated in person. It's not the kind of thing that a person can grasp on a message board.

As Hopper suggested, publish your findings. Publish it yourself if you have to. Surely you've heard of self publishing.

And you're going to have to go on tour. You can't expect that the only way people are going to learn this technique is by traveling to Portland. Either that or train other people.

It was suggested earlier, but if you want a larger audience you should try letsrun.com. You'll have a chance to get comments from elite athletes and coaches. If you really have something to offer, then you shouldn't be afraid of posting over there.

[This message has been edited by leon2 (edited Aug-30-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Aug-30-2005 10:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by VictorN:
reflux,

Sports jester is promoting a lean-back-land-on-your-heel-and-pull stride, not a lean-forward-land-on-your-forefoot-and-push stride, which I believe you are suggesting is more efficient and balanced.

Victor

---

I recall reading on one of the first few pages some stuff about running with your glutes etc...basically I skimmed the novels on the following pages (my bad).

Now I understand your argument. I'd still choose to let this thread die...NO MORE BUMPS.

Happy Tuesday...

IP: Logged

posted Aug-30-2005 12:30 PM            

Another imbalance is termed "quadriceps dominance." With quadriceps dominance, the knee extensors are activated preferentially over the knee flexors during sports movements to stabilize the knee joints, which accentuates and perpetuates strength and coordination imbalances between these muscle groups (Figure 2).4

The final imbalance is "leg dominance." Leg dominance is the imbalance of muscular strength and coordination between opposite limbs, with the dominant limb often demonstrating greater strength and coordination. Limb dominance may place both the weaker, less coordinated limb and the stronger limb at increased risk of knee injury.2,5,6 The weaker limb is compromised in its ability to manage even average forces and torques, while the stronger limb may experience exceptionally high forces and torques due to increased dependence and increased loading on that side in high-force situations (Figure 3).7"

Flesh this out more.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-30-2005 02:54 PM               

I’ll offer any extended apologies to everyone for my inefficiencies in this forum. I’ll just say that words in print don’t equal working in person with any of you.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is most definitely needed and I’m hoping to have that finished as soon as possible so that the technique can be seen with greater scrutiny.

Reflux,

To your quote “If you are a heel striker, your body is hardly in a balanced position, does not take advantage of the body's natural absorption system (bof, calves, achiles, etc), and utilizes the weaker muscles in the legs ( mostly quads and hams vs mainly glutes with less hams). “

The difference between traditional runners and the Kenyan women is that they managed to figure out how to completely eliminate the push off phase of walking. Since they don’t push themselves up, they don’t land on their heels. These women don’t need an absorption system at all.

Every step after foot contact keeps the heel on the ground throughout each step. The push off phase doesn’t start until after the heel strike of the next step. Instead of pushing themselves up and come down, these women figured out how to push themselves forward onto their next step eliminating any vertical motion. That weight transfer is a very smooth process and can be reproduced in runners.

The advantage is that there is no natural absorbing of impact at all through muscle contractions. Therefore those muscles don’t have to waste that energy.

Fredurie

"ligament-dominant." Men and women have different hip structures. A man’s Femur swings from the outside of their hips and with women their Femur is situated further into the pelvis and closer to their natural centerline in comparison with males. Because women walk in similar motion to men instead of following their individual physiology, reduces the efficiencies of their muscular systems to absorb the impact of any landing. In compensation, their bodies have adapted through relying on the ligaments to absorb their impact forces.

"quadriceps dominance” This is the balance as Reflux was referring to. In males, the hamstrings and quads fire evenly to absorb landing impact forces to stabilize the torso. Because of female anatomy, their hamstring muscles are limited in natural motion. So in landing, the primary muscles of absorbing impact forces them to rely on the quads to stop unwanted downward motion upon landing.

"leg dominance." It goes to an earlier post. The human body is naturally stronger on one side than the other. How a runner compensates for that determines their peak speed. A runner is only as fast as his weakest side will allow him to be. It’s the one term I’ve sought in every running guidebook out there. Nobody addresses it.

And if those differences aren’t addressed in training, that differential sets up runners for injuries. While coaching refers to parallel leg swing, that’s an obsolete reality for runners. If two legs have unequal strength, then they have to have unequal motion to move at a constant speed and therefore can’t be equal or parallel.

“The weaker limb is compromised in its ability to manage even average forces and torques, while the stronger limb may experience exceptionally high forces and torques due to increased dependence and increased loading on that side in high-force situations”

Check out the Ostrich video that Victor posted earlier, this quote is visually demonstrated. Clicking to the next videos in the series shows a woman walking forward with her left leg pushing herself straight in motion. Her right leg however, exhibits extreme pronation. She walks completely out of balance and puts extreme stress loads on her right leg to match her maximum forward output of her left leg. You can see she's out of balance because her armswing is also of unequal motion.

Her right foot pushes her body forward and to the left in the exact same distance of the left leg pushing forward. Unequal strength, but equal stride through unequal leg motion.

It's what I describe as decreased skeletal efficiency of the stronger leg to match the muscular inefficiency of the weakest leg.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-30-2005 04:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leon2:
It has to be demonstrated in person. It's not the kind of thing that a person can grasp on a message board.

As Hopper suggested, publish your findings. Publish it yourself if you have to. Surely you've heard of self publishing.

And you're going to have to go on tour. You can't expect that the only way people are going to learn this technique is by traveling to Portland. Either that or train other people.

It was suggested earlier, but if you want a larger audience you should try letsrun.com. You'll have a chance to get comments from elite athletes and coaches. If you really have something to offer, then you shouldn't be afraid of posting over there.

[This message has been edited by leon2 (edited Aug-30-2005).]

---

Sportsjester- Post in letsrun.com. Heck even Al S. might
show up. IMHO- this whole post is a lot of tripe. I can't see how anyone can take this stuff seriously.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-31-2005 01:45 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Aug-31-2005 03:59 PM               

Ok, so if you notice the strength difference, then my question was how do you compensate for it? That's why walking and running one foot in front of the other is so important. If you can walk a perfect straight line, then each leg is moving in equal motion and thus if the strength isn't balanced, the motion is.

Since you work with a treadmill, that's fantastic. keep the setting no less than 3% incline. Your goal is to find the body posture so that you can walk without swinging your arms. Let your torso drop a little as you pull yourself forward.

Your goal is equal strength. If your speed gets to a point that you have to swing your arms, then you've discovered your strength equality limitation. Back off on speed and build strength through increased incline.

Incline for differential training is being able to walk the highest level of incline with no arm swing.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-31-2005 04:01 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Sep-03-2005 08:43 AM               

I just came here to see if there was going to be any video of me walking with Robert's method when I happened to stumble across this total bloodbath of a thread.

This spring, I started training for the Portland Marathon. I have been running half-marathons twice a year for three years, and decided that this year I actually had the time to train for the big one. Time and a couple of other factors decided that I would not run the marathon this year. I was up to about 16 miles when I stopped.

When I met Robert and he pitched his theory to me, I was doubtful about it but intrigued, and decided that I had nothing to lose by trying it. It takes practice to get the form that Robert prescribes, and I definitely haven't perfected it. Robert has -- he's a phenominal walker. But I'm at around 5 miles every other day alternating walking and running by Robert's method.

Whether or not Robert's theories on Kenyan women are true, he has in fact developed a way to walk and run more efficiently and with less stress to the body in several areas, most notably the knees and hips, probably the feet as well. I do it because it's a great workout. I feel good afterward, unlike after I have jogged for 16 miles.

One of the things that he's right about is that you can influence the way that you run by perfecting a form in the way you walk and then 'remembering' it as you run. It takes time for your body to learn it.

I have not started documenting my speeds/heartrate/time. I have been doing it recreationally. I don't have anything to prove, I'm just adding my own experience here.

I find it amazing that some of you would be so incredibly hostile to someone that is simply putting out a new idea. What, are you threatened by it? No wonder you people like to run in a herd.

Cheers to Victor for at least putting the idea out and giving it fair consideration.

Laura Johnson

IP: Logged

posted Sep-09-2005 03:12 PM               

Thank you for the post as to being a real running student with me as well as video model. I'm looking forward to see how everyone in doubt sees that a more efficient way to run does exist.

Any comments anyone?

IP: Logged