 |
> home
> community >
discussion forums > mainstream racing
> can efficient walking lead to efficient running? (Page 7)
|
    |
 |
| > rules | > faq | > e-mail to a friend | moderator: sue, Warrior1971
 |
 |
| Author |
Topic: Can efficient walking lead to efficient running? |
hopper3011
Cool Runner |
 posted Sep-20-2005 09:41 AM
   
quote:
What I do hope you get out of it is that treamill training is a very new frontier in athletes of multiple legs, so don’t dismiss what they can teach you.
No it isn't. Horse treadmills and highspeed horse treadmills have been around longer than I've been alive. Horse trainers were using heartrate monitors before people were. Innovation is not a strange concept to racehorse trainers (despite Tom Ivers manic bleatings) simply because, if they irreparably damage an athlete, they go and buy a new one (not something the rest of us have the leisure to do.) quote:
As cats are solitary hunters
Lion aren't solitary hunters. in fact lion are the polar opposite of solitary hunters and the males need to be seen by the herd in order to drive them towards the females who do the killing.
Unlike yourself, I've actually been around racehorses, also unlike yourself I've actually lived in Southern Africa, and this firsthand knowledge permits me to say that you simply don't have a clue.
IP: Logged |
VictorN
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-20-2005 10:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by sport jester:
As cats are solitary hunters, slinking close to the ground maximizes stride length for them. The closer the body, the further out in front of them they can reach.
The point is they are not trying to go fast when stalking. When running in a race, we want to go as fast as possible. A cats concern with stealth has nothing to do with a human's desire for speed. The only similarity might be that of a cat preparing to pounc with that of a sprinter in the blocks: both want to have an immediate burst of speed. Beyond that, I don't see any way that the technique of a cat stalking prey can be applied to a human running. Sorry,
Victor
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-21-2005 07:23 AM
Sportjester,My name has nothing to do with running. Besides, Tigger would not make a very efficient runner because he bounces too much. I don't want to suggest there aren't many things to learn from animals, but running isn't one of them. When I see chimps or any other four legged creature running upright on two legs I don't see an animal that can match even my pitiful pace. Humans beat animals all the time. What's the WR for dogs at 5k distance? How about 10k? Why is that sportjester? Do dogs have sweat glands?
IP: Logged |
sport jester
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-21-2005 02:38 PM
Hopper,Yes treadmills have been around for a long time, I think I referenced that in my post. The issue I was raising, was how they're used. And from my being around heart rate monitors since the 60's, their use is directly connected with the shrinking costs and sizes to who's budget they can fit. Horse owners tend to be much wealthier than the general population (own 5 horses, and your average income is $250,000 yearly).The more people that can afford them determines who gets to own them, so your horses before humans follows that path. And with the rising cost of buying and training horses to run, the medical importance follows. Your "Throw-it-away-with-a- bullet-to-the-head" mentality was common, but has radically changed with the increasing ability to solve equine medical issues. My point is that I didn't ask a lion to be my running coach, I asked a cheetah. And having lived in Africa, I'll give full credence and credit to knowing more than I do. But you still havent' told me why pulling your weight to run is less efficient than pushing it, and that's the bottom line of what I'm trying to get across. I don't care what animals do for survival in that regard, I want to know why they do what they do. And to that, why the cheetah is the world's fastest runner was for more important to me. Because they pull their weight. Victor, In human terms, doubling your stride length creates two running advantages; first is reducing the number of times your leg muscles have to fire, and therefore creating the ability to generate higher speeds as I've posted. Second in muscular terms, short strides factors the fast twitch muscles as dominating the firing process. As slow twitch muscles are documented to be of longer duration and higher contraction capability, then the longer the stride, then utilizing maximum stride length generates greater efficiency by taking maximum advantage of slow twich muscles in the body. The slower the turnover in your gait cycle to maintain speeds, combines the two advantages which allows you to generate the highest speed possible. That's why cats drop their hips when they stalk and run. It's their built in gearing system. In the biomechanics of their pounce as you state, they maximize range of motion of their legs to maximize the strength they derive from their slow twich muscle firings.
IP: Logged |
hopper3011
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-21-2005 03:44 PM
quote:
Yes treadmills have been around for a long time, I think I referenced that in my post. The issue I was raising, was how they're used.
Despite what Tom Ivers will tell you, 15-20 years ago treadmills were around in the barns of nearly every trainer, nowadays this is not so. Why? Simply because they aren't as effective as ridden exercise for horses, if they were, peole would use them. I simply have no idea where you fantasized this idea that racehorses are trained "to transition into a centerline running for maximum use of their gluteus maximus to run." I'll tell you right now, that is a complete load of cobbler's, don't even try arguing with me unless you want to demonstrate your racehorse riding technique.
As for horses I've trained, ask your mate Tom if he has heard of either Victory Gallop or Menifee? I'll tell you right now he hasn't ever trained a horse which could come within half a furlong of either of those horses, and neither of them were trained "to transition into a centerline running". If that is Tom's fantasy of horse training, no wonder he isn't any good. quote:
And with the rising cost of buying and training horses to run, the medical importance follows. Your "Throw-it-away-with-a- bullet-to-the-head" mentality was common, but has radically changed with the increasing ability to solve equine medical issues.
No it hasn't, in fact it's worse now than ever. Look at the number of starts per annum and then look at the number of horses who race one season only. Come back here and tell us why your fantasy world doesn't gibe with reality. quote:
But you still havent' told me why pulling your weight to run is less efficient than pushing it
And you still haven't demonstrated why it is. This demonstrable proof is the nut of the matter, for - despite all your reams of what you believe to constitute "proof" - you have given neither a successful example nor any credible evidence of research. For all we know, you may well have dreamed up this whole "theory" whilst watching reruns of the X Files one night. Just because you have managed to convince a couple of people (and the only one who agreed to testify on your behalf has shown zero improvement) to use your method demonstrates their gullibility better than your coaching.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-21-2005 04:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by sport jester:
And having lived in Africa, I'll give full credence and credit to knowing more than I do.
As Talulah Bankhead once said...."There's less there than meets the eye!"
IP: Logged |
hopper3011
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-22-2005 07:26 AM
quote:
As Talulah Bankhead once said...."There's less there than meets the eye!"
tigger, I didn't say anything when I read that (I've been trying to keep above the belt on this one), but I did feel that it would be hard to know less.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-22-2005 02:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by hopper3011:
[QUOTE]As Talulah Bankhead once said...."There's less there than meets the eye!"
tigger, I didn't say anything when I read that (I've been trying to keep above the belt on this one), but I did feel that it would be hard to know less. [/QUOTE]I have to commend you on this one. You've been a model of decorum.......well....close anyway!
IP: Logged |
sport jester
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-23-2005 09:17 PM
Hopper,I'll give you a couple of names to google; Jeff Pisciotta and Tobie Hatfield, because I just returned from the Nike Sports Lab to demonstrate for them my running technique. They invited me in to present my theories of running biomechanics. It seems the opportunity to develop a shoe around it exists. It was supposed to be an hour meeting, however I didn't walk out of there until almost two and a quarter hours later. I can assure you that I was fully grilled as to where my running technique comes from, and how I derived it. This included a treadmill demonstration and teaching the basics to Tobie. They watched me walk, and run in linear form as Laura's video demonstrates. Oh and as a side note, she started at 7mph and now she's running at 8.5mph... ( I think that's 20% faster isn't it?) The underlying conversation was that even the best scientists in the sports world A: Have never seen anyone walk or run like me and B: Couldn't dispute the efficiencies that I state exist in my running technique and C: Were able to corroborate my technique with research with what they knew about running injury biomechanics that I was unaware of. The next step will be to present it to a larger group or work individually with their sponsored runners who are on their injured list. Either way, nobody said I didn't know what I was talking about...
IP: Logged |
hopper3011
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-24-2005 11:04 AM
quote:
she started at 7mph and now she's running at 8.5mph
So she went from a sloooow crawl to a slooow crawl, very impressive. That may be a 20% improvement but she also states that she went from being able to jog 16 miles to "5 miles every other day alternating walking and running." That's a negative number if you want to do that improvement calculation. quote:
I just returned from the Nike Sports Lab
Before you get too carried away, Nike has a whole team of people whose job is to listen to whackjobs (sorry tigger, I tried so hard) and their looney theories. They'll promise you the moon while you are there, then toss all your crap in the bin as soon as your back is turned. They listen to a gazillion suggestions each year, follow up on a lot of them and act on three or four. Jeff is the low guy on the totem pole, if they had really liked your idea, they would have gotten one of the big guns out.
The Sports Lab is hardly the President's inner sanctum. Boasting about having been there only makes you look naive in the eyes of people who know how Nike (like other huge corporations) works.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-25-2005 08:58 AM
quote:
Before you get too carried away, Nike has a whole team of people whose job is to listen to whackjobs (sorry tigger, I tried so hard) and their looney theories.[/B]
I think you're still on the moral high ground. After all, you didn't call him a whackjob but merely stated a fact about Nike!!
IP: Logged |
sport jester
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-27-2005 03:11 PM
Hopper,Even the military has units who's job it is to examine weapons designed by children and sent to them by teachers. In the world of street racing cars, it's the highest honor not only to win races, but to have your car bought from you by HONDA. Their engineers study what the kids are doing, because they have no limitations as to how they're supposed to think. Their engineers learn from them. I was invited for the same reason, in that my thoughts are completely different. And if I were a true whacko, they wouldn't waste a minute more than they had to. I don't think the title of Senior Engineer of Advanced Products or Senior Biomechanic of NIKE's Sports Lab is exactly a "peon" title To be dealing with whackjobs... I'm sure they leave that type of thing to mailclerks... And one member of the group was the fourth ranked long jumper in the world (Llewellyn Starks)... And unfortunately he couldn't answer my questions of jumping or running biomechanics either. I'm just trying to beat you in finding someone who will point blank, with math, tell me that my running technique is a less efficient way to run. And to date, nobody has been able to do it. Trust me, I keep searching. And as for Laura, you're using a very old arguement; she's not elite level.... But she was running the best way she knew how regardless. Even if she doesn't run the distances you demand, she's running because she no longer has the joint pain that she used to endure. She's runnning for exercise, not racing. I'm sure that a 20% speed increase in speed would apply to you as well, unless you can tell me that you're a world champion in any event and need no help or have an interest in running faster.
IP: Logged |
hopper3011
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-28-2005 08:44 AM
quote:
EVERY runner I have ever taught, has improved their peak speed by 20% with less than an hour of teaching.
quote:
She's runnning for exercise, not racing.
Perhaps you need to examine the phrase "mutually inconsistent statements" and get back to us. quote:
I'm just trying to beat you in finding someone who will point blank, with math, tell me that my running technique is a less efficient way to run.
Math, at this point is irrelevant. If, as you claim, your technique is going to result in faster running, the what you need is results, show us one of your runners who has actually improved with your teaching. Talk is cheap, results don't need to be justified. Prove it to us with results, we'll take the math for granted. So far, you haven't been able to do that.
IP: Logged |
MoonShiver
Member |
posted Oct-10-2005 06:27 PM
I've read almost the whole of the messy, unfocused, and often dirty discussion in this topic, probably only because I am interested in an efficient running form. Here's a handful of observations:Yes, all you critics and nit-pickers of Robert Vervloet's, most of the time you got the right logic and proper facts behind you, and sound scepticism, and right statistics, and all of that.
And, yes, Robert is a volcano of risky statements, unprovable claims, far reaching assumptions, too distant associations, inconsistencies, etc. And his incomparable style...
Still... it is he who is right and you who are wrong. Firstly: when was the last time YOU had a fresh idea, original observation, or unorthodox notion? - Can't remember? Robert has one per minute - this is his blessing and his curse... Secondly: How right, percentage-wise, were Einstein, Darwin, Newton, Faraday, even Marx? - 80, 66, 93.7? - Does it matter? Let's say he is 20% right (I don't mean 20% speed improvement, though :-) Isn't that worth serious consideration? Not in the least
because... Thirdly: What is that current scientific canonical wisdom on the efficient and proper running form that you defend against usurpers of the 'sport jester' type? Okay, you've listened to what Cerutty, Lydiard, Yessis, Higdon, Pfitzinger, or Romanov had to say about how to move your poor legs, arms, hips, and belly. Now you know exactly what to do...Or do you really? What those guys agree upon in that matter? Any resemblance to the 'proper diet' gurus? Fourthly: The very annoying thing about Mr.V. is that he is immune to invectives he's receiving and never responds with one.
How f.... un-American! (Robert is European-born, as am I). The guy should, in his next letter, indulge in escalated mutual verbal abuse or show up at your door with a semi-automatic.
Instead he produces another Niagara of passionate, convincing, semi-convincing, and what-the-hell-he-means arguments... And I can only ask here: "What would Jesus do?" :-) Fifthly: Is that so preposterous to imagine that in 10 years half of marathoners will run Vervloet style? After all no one before 1968 used the most effective high-jumping style, and the most efficient method of cross-country skiing has been developed in the last 20
(or maybe 30) years.
Maybe the above scenario is not very likely but why then bury the man alive before we find out what he brings? - Just because he is not sponsored by Nike or working for Mayo Clinic, is not Gallowaying everywhere, and he abused Kenyan women freewheelingly instead of using them for his Master's degree thesis? Lastly to 'hopper3011':
You apparently enjoy very much throwing stones at the village idiot to the crowd's amusement. And your logic is impeccable, and your facts are factual, and your research is thorough, and your imagination is zilch, and "there's something happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones?" And I have an advice for you from guess who on this forum: " Please ...crawl back into whatever hole you slunk out of. " [This message has been edited by MoonShiver (edited Oct-10-2005).] [This message has been edited by MoonShiver (edited Oct-10-2005).]
IP: Logged |
sport jester
Cool Runner |
posted Oct-13-2005 11:49 AM
Dear Moonshiver,You stated quite eloquently what lies within. Am I a brilliant debater? Probably not in the least. My tools are the treadmill and taking people by the hand and teaching them how to put one foot in front of the other. Reading this stream is without doubt a taxing affair for anyone and I commend you if you read every word. In the mean time since my last post, I’ve been in discussion with a very small company (I think there’s a swoosh in their logo, but I’m not sure). So while everyone here has been enjoying their verbal tirades of arrogance, I’ve simply tried my best to answer them ( and of course not always to their satisfaction). It’s taken me 13 years to get to this point, of putting myself in front of the best scientists in the sports world, and those are the individuals that have judged me to their satisfaction. So to test my theories in competition, I’ve received the verbal commitment to coach a running team to put my world into physical practice.
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted Oct-13-2005 12:18 PM
What's your opinion of this:http://www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted Oct-13-2005 12:39 PM
Cheetahs can only run about 100 yards before they need a considerable rest.http://www.awf.org/wildlives/65 Lions spend 16-20 hours a day sleeping. The females do the hunting but the males take the "lion's share" of the spoils. I really think humans can learn a lot from lions  Female lions hunt in packs quote:
The lions fan out along a broad front or semicircle to creep up on prey.
http://www.awf.org/wildlives/148 Young male lions will spend years as nomads living alone until they are mature enough to take over a pride of their own.
------------------
Me
My Running Club
My Training Programs
IP: Logged |
hopper3011
Cool Runner |
posted Oct-13-2005 12:44 PM
quote:
Lastly to 'hopper3011'
Perhaps you should take a look at the top of this page, you may note that this is called a "Discussion Forum". That means that I'm not obliged to swallow the hogwash of every deranged buffoon who decides to parade his idiocy in here. If he started his own website, I would simply click through, if he brings it to a discussion forum, it's going to get discussed.
Skepticism is a perfectly valid discussion tool, it's not my problem that sportjester is unable to defend his "theorem". Perhaps if he didn't start off by claiming to improve runners by 20% and then be completely unable to prove it, I might be less abrasive. Lies are kind of hard to defend.
As for sportjester coming in here with a machine gun, have at it. I would love to see that, I don't think anybody has ever seen me back down from a fight. Unfortunately, if you are going to shoot a gun, you need ammunition, something sportjester lacks.
All in all, Moonshiver, nice try, but I suggest you learn to swim in the shallows before you dive into the shark tank.
IP: Logged |
sport jester
Cool Runner |
posted Oct-13-2005 09:56 PM
Fredurie,I looked over the website and I didn’t find anything to what I’m doing, but if anything specific caught your eye, bring it up and I’ll comment. Bigapplepie, Cheetahs are very high-speed animals, but can’t handle any distances. Their prey can’t run very fast, but they only have to run one-quarter inch further. That’s the balance of Mother Nature. That’s why I studied the running techniques of both types of runners. Every animal has strengths and weakness to how they move. I just tried to combine the best from each I found. Even studying the movement of insects to develop weight training routines is part of what I do. Hopper, What would my day be like without your unique contributions to my life. You question that I don’t have math, because I draw conclusions from observations, yet you still have yet to even present one formula in counter. I would have more respect for your opinions (the definition of lacking math). If you watched Laura’s video, then you would have seen that she walks with no linear rise. If my technique has no math, then why no push off? If you watched the walking video, then you would have seen that the heel strike of any step hits the ground before any heel lift of the stance bearing leg. That reality is how the women of Kenya walk. That's not an observation, it's also measurable. That's their secret to their efficiency of weight transfer. And if you didn't read fully, being able to prove that was basis for the coaching funding. And to your weapon worries, I’m an expert marksman, but I have no ammunition because I hate guns; I prefer the crossbow.
IP: Logged |
MoonShiver
Member |
posted Oct-14-2005 01:52 AM
hopper3011 wrote: Perhaps you should take a look at the top of this page, you may note that this is called a "Discussion Forum".
(...)
All in all, Moonshiver, nice try, but I suggest you learn to swim in the shallows before you dive into the shark tank.
---
Dear quiz-taker, please mark the true statement(s):
- "Discussion Forum" and "shark tank" are synonyms
- Those statements are inconsistent
- I don't have to remember in my last sentence what I said in my first, others have to
- Perfect swimming in shallows has zero effect on survival chances in the shark tank
(Sorry, hopper, I couldn't resist...)To sport jester:
sport jester, I am interested in your opinion about the Pose Method of A.Romanov, the Russian-American coach, with which you must be familiar. It seems to be almost opposite of what you propose (forward falling, short stride, etc), but the ultimate goal is also minimizing energy cost.
Any thoughts?
[This message has been edited by MoonShiver (edited Oct-14-2005).]
[This message has been edited by MoonShiver (edited Oct-14-2005).]
IP: Logged |
hopper3011
Cool Runner |
posted Oct-14-2005 09:53 AM
quote:
You question that I don’t have math
I do? That's news to me. In reality my only question is your lack of proof, nothing else. quote:
And to your weapon worries
I have no weapon worries, you are so obviously ammunitionless it has never been a worry.
You were asked before to show some proof, I note that you have still come back without any. Why is that?Moonshiver,
quote:
(Sorry, hopper, I couldn't resist...)
Don't be sorry, make sense instead. If you think that post made any, you need to let go of the bong.
IP: Logged |
sport jester
Cool Runner |
posted Oct-17-2005 12:27 PM
Moonshiver,I’m of opposites to the “Pose” style Ideas because it’s opposite to how we walk. Humans aren’t by nature a forefoot running athlete. If we learn to stand and walk with heel strike first biomechanics, then why do we transfer into a ball-heel-ball process to run? If we walk with a heel strike, then why do we change? Why add an extra step to a simpler heel-ball strike sequence? Wouldn’t it be more logical that the continuation of heel strike through running be the natural progression in creating higher speed? If two identical runners in size and same calorie feasting on carbo’s the night before were to race, then would you rather be the one who can run the race at 7MPH or one who can walk at 7MPH (and I can walk at 9MPH with no problem)? Who can enter the longest race and why? Lets start there.
IP: Logged |
VictorN
Cool Runner |
posted Oct-17-2005 01:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by sport jester:
I can walk at 9MPH with no problem.
Somebody please check my math: 9 MPH = 6.67 minute/mile (or 6:40 min/mile)
6.67 min/mile = 4.13 min/K (or 4:08 min/K)
4.13 min/K x 20K = 1:22:40 20K According to this link http://www.racewalk.com/Results/PerformanceListMens20K.asp
that would make you the 7th fastest US 20K ever! Victor Edited in an attempt to make the math clearer. [This message has been edited by VictorN (edited Oct-17-2005).]
IP: Logged |
leon2
Cool Runner |
posted Oct-17-2005 02:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by VictorN:
Somebody please check my math:9 MPH = 6.67 minute/mile
:67 = 1min, 7 sec, or 7:07 pace. He actually claims to be faster than that.Math is my weakness, so I checked the 'Merv calculator'. 9mph = 6:40 pace That would be a 2:54 marathon -- walking. And ... quote:
I can walk at 9MPH with no problem
(Just imagine if he RAN a marathon using his new technique.) But I have learned from experience to not doubt anything that he says. It just leads to a lot more of his self-aggrandizing drivel.
[This message has been edited by leon2 (edited Oct-17-2005).]
IP: Logged |
sport jester
Cool Runner |
posted Oct-17-2005 02:50 PM
My peak speed is higher, yet I can't sustain that for very long. Which I openly conceed.
IP: Logged |
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
