posted Oct-17-2005 03:07 PM               

At 6'3" 220 lbs, a 13.6 MPH is my absolute peak running speed. And I did that on a horse treadmill.

It would take a lot more training than I've put into it. My point is one of efficiency.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-17-2005 03:09 PM               

At 6'3" 220 lbs, a 13.6 MPH is my absolute peak running speed. And I did that on a horse treadmill.

It would take a lot more training than I've put into it. My point is one of efficiency.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-17-2005 04:32 PM               

quote:

---

Who can enter the longest race and why?

---

quote:

---

then would you rather be the one who can run the race at 7MPH or one who can walk at 7MPH

---

IP: Logged

posted Oct-18-2005 01:42 AM            

(Excerpted from: http://home.hia.no/~stephens/effiperf.htm
(...)
This brings us to the Truck vs. Ferrari analogy. Having the biggest engine doesn't guarantee the fastest performance in car racing or bicycle racing (or rowing, running, and swimming). The Ferrari goes faster because it is lighter and slices very cleanly through the air, reducing aerodynamic drag. So does the cyclist who perfects an aerodynamic riding position. (Click here for a discussion of cycling aerodynamics from expert Jim Martin). The best distance runners display high running economy. This means that they can run at a given speed with less oxygen demand. A high economy can make up for a relatively lower VO2 max. For example, Derek Clayton ran an incredible 2:08 marathon in 1969. His VO2 max was "only" 69 ml/min/kg (well it was probably a bit higher than that, but this was data from one non-peak season test). Thanks to his high running economy, that time stood for 12 years and was not matched by talented runners such as Craig Virgin, Gary Tuttle, and Bill Rodgers, whose VO2 max values ranged from 78 to 82 ml/min/kg! In rowing, both the hydrodynamics of the racing shell and the technical mastery of the rower contribute to rowing economy. However, even on a stationary ergometer, elite rowers are more efficient than well-trained but non-elite oarsman. This is not due to a difference in fiber composition. So, it appears that subtle changes in rowing technique can continue to contribute to improve rowing efficiency and performance with additional years of training.

In no sport is efficiency more important than in swimming. The best swimmers in the world do not stand out in physiological tests of raw endurance capacity when compared to other endurance athletes. This suggests that high efficiency, achieved through a combination of ideal anatomical structure and technical perfection of the stroke is critical.
(...)

See also: http://www.humankinetics.com/products/showexcerpt.cfm?excerpt_id=2981

[This message has been edited by MoonShiver (edited Oct-18-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-18-2005 09:50 AM               

quote:

---

Yeah, yeah, "efficiency" is of course a four-letter word now, just because sport jester uses the term.

---

quote:

---

At a certain point (26.22 miles for the marathoner) absolute efficiency is less important than speed.

---

quote:

---

Cheap shots are easy, but then again, I have yet to meet a movie critic that has ever made a movie......

---

quote:

---

EVERY runner I have ever taught, has improved their peak speed by 20% with less than an hour of teaching.

---

quote:

---

As an individual in sports research for 13 years

---

IP: Logged

posted Oct-18-2005 02:58 PM               

“Who cares?” is the perfect answer from you, because it highlights your short-term perspective. You lack the ability to see the insult to your running skills if a walker can stroll past you.

I'll scale it down for you. If you have to run at 3.5 MPH and I can walk, I will always be able to walk further than you can run because you're burning more energy for the same speed. And the faster I can walk, the more energy you consume exponentially to maintain the same speed.

Walking consumes less energy than running for any given speed, and that fact is not speculation. Unless of course you know better.

The only reason you have to run is because you have no stride length. If a walker can keep from running by simply increasing their walking stride one-sixteenth of an inch compared with you, then they'll be laughing while you’re wheezing at the finish line. Or any efficient walker can ignore you completely and simply compete in a longer race knowing the energy reserves available to them that you don't have.

That’s why stride length is so vital to running skill instead of higher turnover.

Since you state it's the distance that matters, then you have another problem. Remember, they're still walking at your running 7MPH speed. They haven't even started to run yet.

Since walking is a slower turnover rate than running, a walker can EASILY run faster than you because they have the biomechanic room for increasing their turnover rate while you don’t. Either way, you'll lose the race to an efficient walker.

Running is a three-step process, sometimes called by coaches as ball-heel-ball foot biomechanics. Walking is heel strike to ball pushoff. I hope this simple math can mean something to you because it’s one less step necessary and thus faster.

Oh and as a side note, if you'd like to factor in education, why don't we start with basics. Will you please state for me the legal definition of the word intelligent (Black's Law Dictionary if you don't have one) and tell me how it applies to you?

If you think you're better than me, then prove it.

Didn't you ever read the proverb "Those who can't do, teach?" So why would I waste my time with people who can't do anything?

"Who cares" is what teachers tell me when they have to admit they aren't intelligent enough to answer the question and too cowardly to admit it.

[This message has been edited by sport jester (edited Oct-18-2005).]

[This message has been edited by sport jester (edited Oct-18-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-18-2005 03:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:
If a walker can keep from running by simply increasing their walking stride one-sixteenth of an inch compared with you, then they'll be laughing while you’re wheezing at the finish line.

---

No way.

quote:

---

Or any efficient walker can ignore you completely and simply compete in a longer race knowing the energy reserves available to them that you don't have.

---

I would venture to say that the longer the race, the farther ahead she will be.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-18-2005 11:55 PM               

You’re on a better path of thought than Hopper was in logic. As long as the speeds of a runner and identically sized walker are equal, then the strides have to be the same length. That’s the leap in speed potential learning to be a good walker offers, to double one’s walking speed requires doubling their stride length because the turnover rate stays about the same.

When people question my ablility to walk at 9MPH, what they can't fathom accomplishing is the stride length necessary to do it. Is it practical at racing distance? Of course not, but the skills required to walk that fast are easily adaptable to increasing ones own peak running speed.

What most struggle with comprehending is that teaching someone to double their walking speed and stride length isn’t impossible to do. That’s what converting (like the theropod) to a monorail running gait offers. If another bipedal animal can run that way and triple it’s stride length in running, then why wouldn’t I try to copy it in hopes of extrapolating any efficiency gains.

Doubling my stride length in walking is how I achieve the speeds I do and anyone can learn it.

The trick is eliminating the ball-heel-ball steps of running biomechanics and extrapolating the better efficiencies of a shorter step heel-ball only pushoff. And the only way you can continue to increase your speed potential is to keep walking, only faster.

It requires learning how to run walking. Most individuals have a hard time with that, because they can’t fathom walking twice as fast as they currently do. What you’re missing out is that even walking to higher speeds, the walker still has the choice to run, and with utilizing a higher turnover rate, can easily adapt the longer walking stride to longer running stride. And that equation equals running faster.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-19-2005 12:46 AM            

I like running like others like whisky, but I'm no longer 30 years old, can't afford 150 miles a week, and don't expect miracles from my
organism. The most promising way of improvement seems to me developing an efficient form or, more generally, good running economy.
I looked for advice and theory out there. What I found is sort of
"shorter stride is far superior provided it is long enough...", "ride high, but sit low", "push-off plus toe-off plus kick-off ", "buy yourself a pair of longer and thinner Achilleses with 20-year warranty", "hamstrings, hamstrings, hamstrings", "leave quads at home",
"margarine, margarine, margarine, and suddenly butter", well, all you guys know what I mean.
Robert says: no linear rise, pull yourself with the ground (did I get it right?), others say: minimize the contact, you are most
economical while in the air, etc. I am afraid we are left alone here to our own devices and need to figure it out ourselves.
Research allegedly says the turnover for good runners remains basically in the 180-200 range, and what makes the difference is
ultimately the stride length. My stride is short, due maybe to age, unevenly strong muscle groups, inflexibility...
I tried Pose: it slows me down. Besides I see antilope-like Kenyans and I like what I see.
That is mainly what made me interested in Robert's (and similar) ideas.
Do you guys have any better propositions or some valuable personal experiences?
---
I do not have an opinion about Kenyan women: I can't run with laundry on my head.
As far as Kenyan men are concerned I overheard that the advantage is not genetic, but may be partly environmental: altitude, temperatures, barefoot running and walking on soft surfaces, and partly related to the philosophy of training: less frequent, but very
intensive training sessions, lots of hill running, extreme internal competition, etc.
Maybe such periodic supremacies are just normal?: I remember Cuban boxers taking most of the gold at Olympics...

IP: Logged

posted Oct-19-2005 08:46 AM               

quote:

---

sportjester never called you names. I tried (awkwardly) a bit of sarcasm and suddenly you are "a little insulted". C'mon!

---

quote:

---

And you've been for 3 months regularly discussing what from the very beginning you considered a lunacy ... May I call you a little irrational?

---

quote:

---

Besides I see antilope-like Kenyans and I like what I see.

---

IP: Logged

posted Oct-19-2005 11:44 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Oct-21-2005 12:56 AM               

You’ve got it in philosophy. There are four measurements that determine an efficient runner.

When you stated that the Pose method slowed you down, absolutely made my day. Pose’ technique is designed to allow you to run with comfort, not speed. Recognizing that distinction is a rarity for me to hear from others.

Running on one’s forefoot demands greater pushoff energy so coaches ask you not to limit your height, but your stride length. And that slows you down.

That’s the importance to me of why transition from our walking biomechanics of heel strike first to a slower forefoot running occurs. For some, running with higher comfort can translate into running quicker. However that isn’t the case for everyone. It’s a good chance that you already had suitable biomechanics, so the Pose method put greater strain on your feet and legs than your old running technique did.

Regardless of who’s technique you follow, the only way to improve is to measure how your body moves and figure out what measurements of importance can be altered to increase speed. That’s what’s missing from the vast majority of running “advice” out there. Nobody offers measurements to prove their opinion can work.

If that’s your question, then improving speed can be boiled down to five high priority questions:

Linear Rise: How high we push ourselves up with each step.
Lateral Sway: How far you rock from side to side from pronation
Torso Rotation: The range of rearward and forward rotation of the hips and spine.
Stride Length: The distance between each step.
Heart Rate: The most accurate measurement one can make to determine running efficiency.

It’s actually real simple. Regardless of advice, if your heart rate drops running at the same speed, then you’ve improved your technique. What wasted energy exists to bring a runner from 154 beats per minute to only needing 142 after working with me. What measurements of the above reduced the oxygen demands of the higher rate?

As to the other primary factors, linear rise is a wave form that can be measured. Runners think a marathon is 26 miles plus some. In reality, adding the amount of rise from each pushoff to the distance of coming down, one can figure out the real distance your body traveled. Adding lateral sway measurements and you can use a computer to draw the corkscrew shaped line of travel your body really takes as you’re running down the load. Have you read that anywhere?

Decreasing linear rise running has to start with eliminating linear rise walking. That’s what laura’s video (after the article) demonstrates; that the heel lift doesn’t’ start until after the swing leg has already initiated heel strike. That’s why my technique is a more comfortable way to run, there is very little linear rise running because you’ve maximized forward momentum to suspend the torso. It’s a much more smooth way to run. That’s what my students tell me regularly.

Shortening that line of bodily travel is what I focused on. I doubt you can claim you’ve read that opinion anywhere. Shortening that line means that if you can reduce or eliminate linear rise or lateral sway walking, then you’ve shortened the distance you actually run. Add longer stride, and the above combination was too hard to ignore.

And to learn my way to walk is unfortunately against the rules of Olympic walking which is a defined technique. They don’t allow the knee bend necessary to walk at 9+MPH.

I’ve had students cross marathon finish lines after being told by physicians that they’d never run again. The difference was learning how to walk as fast as they could before attempting to run.

Go find the Nature Magazine Jan 31, 2002 article at your local library (or buy online) about theropod running biomechanics. How this two legged dinosaur runs is an exact explanation of the biomechanics I teach and how it alters stride length. The videos of Laura demonstrate how monorail walking and running works.

[This message has been edited by sport jester (edited Oct-21-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-21-2005 02:00 AM            

laker wrote:
"Perhaps Sportjester should approach the race walking community, I haven't seen any solid evidence of him making anyone a faster runner, much less 20%. The theories seem much more applicable to walking than running."
-------

True, but it seems to me that sportjester's style IS a race walking style, and he tries a risky business of
extrapolating it into running.
Well, the primary and maybe only essential difference between walking and running is uninterrupted contact with the ground for the former (it is the main official requirement after all). Running is a series of jumps.
Further, if we agree (?) that running is more energetically taxing than walking at the same speed, and what makes it more energetically taxing is that very action of hopping into the air which is the only difference between the two modes of forward movement, then what's the conclusion ?
I guess this was Robert's premise, and it is not irrational, but maybe I should read him again..
Of course the main question is how to go beyond inherent speed limitation of walking while preserving some of its movement economy (am I too simple minded?). But it seems at least worth trying.
One more thought: both walking and running, and various styles in running as well, engage different muscle groups differently - some are underused (e.g. quads or glutei), some overcharged. Maybe by
rearranging that workload we can find optimal and most efficiently balanced propelling machine.
And it means basically a new (sometimes radically new) running form.
----
Good night

[This message has been edited by MoonShiver (edited Oct-23-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-21-2005 02:29 PM               

quote:

---

It is thaaaat simple...

---

quote:

---

And you, of course, HAVE GONE and FOUND OUT.

---

quote:

---

you can expend 20 sentences explaining it to me.

---

quote:

---

One more fact: within last few years we had Pose method, Chi-Running, Explosive Running, Alexander Technique in running, plus Robert's ideas (and probably more).

---

quote:

---

Looks like running is unlike accounting yet in the solidity of the theoretical base....

---

IP: Logged

posted Oct-21-2005 02:31 PM               

A cool post and a couple of points.

My point is merely a question of your body’s perspective. All you want to do is get your body across the finish line. It doesn’t matter if you choose to do it walking or running. Walking is just the most efficient way to do it.

Hopping as you state is true, but it’s not the shortest distance between two points. Momentum as a force is defined by perfectly straight line of travel. How close you can come to that perfect line is what weight transfer efficiency is.

You walk and run with 65% efficiency with ball-heel-ball biomechanics, and heel-ball transition. Maximizing walking efficiency can create 80-90% transfer efficiency if the line of body travel reaches efficient momentum to carry your bodyweight.

The Kenyan article you referenced covers a lot of theories, but leaves out their women’s unique skill. It also makes no attempt to discuss biomechanic differences possibilities. Either way nobody’s theories have proven to create anyone faster.

No, you’re not too simple minded. It’s the perfect Jeopardy description. What you describe is exactly what I sought. “how to go beyond inherent speed limitation of walking while preserving ( I prefer to use all instead of some) some of its movement economy.”

[This message has been edited by sport jester (edited Oct-21-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-21-2005 02:45 PM               

quote:

---

“how to go beyond inherent speed limitation of walking while preserving ( I prefer to use all instead of some) some of its movement economy.”

---

IP: Logged

posted Oct-23-2005 04:01 AM            

hopper3011 answered (playing fool): Did I say that?
---------------------
Using your style: Did I say that you said?

In February 2004, on the forum "Topic: The Kenyan Way" some hopper3011, together with KudzuRunner, 8ball, et al. discussed the Kenyan dominance issue in length killing it softly. Some hopper3011 demonstrated usual verbosity and some knowledge of the subject. Quite useful read, I recommend it to anyone interested.
So he actually has gone and has found out.
Amen(1).
--------------------------

A brief dialog:

hopper3011 posted Jul-31-2005 03:50 PM (about sportjester)
"For this to be a valid theory, Kenyan women would have to dominate athletics in the same way the men do. Unfortunately, they don't, it's not even close. Kenyan men don't carry firewood and I'd be willing to bet they don't hang around watching their mothers do it either."

hopper3011 posted Aug-01-2005 04:59 PM (about sportjester)
"Then have him answer 2 simple questions, I asked one of them before but he ignored me:
1) Why do a large number of Kenyan athletes come from urbanized areas?
2) Why don't the Kenyan women dominate athletics in the same way as the men?"

hopper3011 posted Feb-09-2004 09:17 AM
"Just to note about societal differences with regard the female competitors. African females are not necessarily given the same freedoms to compete as males and face different societal pressures. For example, Kenya has a large Muslim population.
To equate their relative lack of dominance (vis-a-vis Kenyan males) to a hole in the genetic theory, without taking into account these differences, is not a reasonable hypothesis."

Amen(2).
-----------------------
So the wise old Hopper answered the question so sternly thrown at sportjester by the new Hopper. Bravo!
As demonstrated above, dear Hopper, you may be happy as a puppy debating matters with yourself.
And, because you hit the wall on this forum having nothing more to say and saying it, I suggest you consider that option.
By the way, CPS (compulsive posting syndrome) is curable, as any other addiction.
Amen(3).

[This message has been edited by MoonShiver (edited Oct-23-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-23-2005 07:10 AM            

Have you read this entire thread? If not....

Before you turn this into another hopper bash I suggest you go back and check some of the links provided to sportjester's background. I think you'll easily be able to figure out who is the voice of reason and experience.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-23-2005 03:01 PM            

Your "voice of reason and experience" rhymes with Hopper's "Yet he doesn't even have a BSc let alone a Doctorate". The history of progress... but let's stop here.

In my view the difference between us is the one of the overall attitude, and mutual understanding is probably impossible:

Say I:
sportjester often sounds incoherent, lacks credentials, makes unbelievable claims, but maybe there is a golden nugget there, at the bottom: a concept useful for me and others. So I will focus on that and ignore the rest.

Say you:
that guy is an usurper, imposter, and a fraud, no doubt about that, and such easy a target (unlike other 'innovators' in the field) - we are in the right to be the judge, jury, and the executioner. Let's get to work...

I expected to find some counter-propositions and valuable insight on the theme "proper running form", "running economy", etc.
But it appears that we are totally okay without it: "Put one foot in front of the other, repeat for X minutes, ..."
All I've heard was cheap irony and colourful epithets. From the voice of reason and experience.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-23-2005 10:24 PM               

“But it appears that we are totally okay without it: "Put one foot in front of the other, repeat for X minutes, ..."

And that’s the irony, we don’t put one foot in front of the other (perfectly). The closest we've gotten is to place each foot on both sides of our natural centerline. Humans can alter their biomechanics and accomplish it with training. But while we subtly acknowledge the definition of perfect biomechanic running form for humans; because of forward lean, can’ t do it naturally. And that frustrates many.

Once you do acquire the understanding of the physics involved, applying it will prove itself. And that’s why I’m looking forward to your response on the dinosaour article and videos.

[This message has been edited by sport jester (edited Oct-23-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-24-2005 09:22 AM               

quote:

---

So the wise old Hopper answered the question so sternly thrown at sportjester by the new Hopper.

---

quote:

---

Does the voice of reason and experience need to be so unlikable?

---

quote:

---

sportjester often sounds incoherent, lacks credentials, makes unbelievable claims

---

quote:

---

The history of progress... but let's stop here.

---

quote:

---

"Put one foot in front of the other, repeat for X minutes, ..."

---

IP: Logged

posted Oct-24-2005 09:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MoonShiver:

Your "voice of reason and experience" rhymes with Hopper's "Yet he doesn't even have a BSc let alone a Doctorate". The history of progress... but let's stop here.

---

Sorry about the mistake on your name.

I guess you really couldn't stop there could you? After saying you would you kept going for quite a while.

If it's PhD's you want then have a look at Youngren's work on stride mechanics. He knows just a little bit about running and efficiency.

You're perfectly free to look for nuggets in sportjester's claims but I suspect all you'll find is a pile of steaming turds carefully covered with pseudo scientific phrases to impress the ignorant masses. As for me....I'll listen to the voice of reason and continue to improve the good old fashioned way. In spite of what people think there really isn't any other.

Now, (and I really mean it) I think I'll stop here.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-24-2005 02:48 PM               

The physics is RSS-Relaxed Static Stability. Physics isn’t pseudo science.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/x-29.htm

There are two ways an aircraft can fly. Either stable or unstable. The unstable airplane (X-29) is faster, more maneuverable, and can fly further than its traditional stability balanced airplane counterpart. If flying unstable is so much more efficient, then why not use the same principles of physics to create a better runner?

While you may not understand the physics involved, doesn’t mean that no science is behind my work.

http://www.active.com/story.cfm?story_id=12114&sidebar=13&category=running

Daniels writes, "The main problem associated with a slower turnover is that the slower you take steps, the longer the time you spend in the air." This displaces your body mass higher, and leads to a greater ground landing shock. A shorter stride means a lighter stride. Daniels advises that optimal stride rate should feel like you are running "over the ground, not into it."

A shorter stride is no guarantee of a lighter stride. And if it’s lighter stride you want, then there’s no stride lighter than walking. So why not walk as fast as you can?

Let me get this straight….. According to Daniels, being in the air is a “main problem?” So the definition of running is a “problem” to a running expert? Keeping you in the air for as long as possible, is my end result

So if you’re not supposed to run (the definition of floating above the ground), then what other technique of movements exists but to walk? If floating is a problem, then why do you protest my answer to improving speed by learning how to walk faster?

Isn’t that the difference between running and walking in the first place? Shouldn’t the goal of running be to spend as much time in the air as possible? The landing impact is something you can control. That’s my point.

Eliminating impact weight and longer stride is every runner’s goal.

Slower turnover and longer time in the air defines longer stride. If you spend more time in the air for any given speed, then you can reduce the number of steps necessary. If you can drop from 1,500 steps per mile to 1,200 steps total, why wouldn’t that be a goal?

In summary, the above link states (with Youngren’s reference) that;
“The combination of a light, wheeling turnover, minimized bouncing, and greater quadriceps flexibility and knee flexion can help you achieve the right stride length and cadence for improved speeds at reduced injury risk, whether you're on an easy recovery run or in the midst of an intense track workout.”

I fully agree with the above statement. However I’m just saying that another path exists that accomplishes the same goals with higher speed. The above is the formula for running with efficient stability. My path is defined by complete instability. And why I walk and run the way I do.

How can elimination instead of “minimized” bouncing not be a better path? Quadriceps flexibility and knee flexation is at it’s greatest range of motion, doing lunge exercises, which is why running books recommend lunges as an integral part. Which is exactly what you look like when you’re walking at 9MPH.

“Stride length, both natural and optimal, increases at faster speeds. The key is to discover the way your optimal stride length feels, and it will follow you at any running speed. Renowned exercise physiologist, coach, and Running & FitNews editorial board member Jack Daniels, Ph.D., has observed repeatedly that leg turnover naturally determines stride length.”

“Focusing runners on reaching 180 steps per minute is an excellent way to move their stride length into the optimal range, without unduly placing all of their focus on running form.”

If it isn’t stride, but turnover rates of 180 steps, then wouldn’t you want to maximize your stride with the longest air time possible? If that doesn’t define running form, then what does? You have to have maximum airtime per step if you want to run faster. Isn’t that a complete contradiction to the above statements? And you wonder about my “science?”

And the longest running stride possible is defined by your longest walking stride possible.

So what do you have against that idea?

IP: Logged

posted Oct-24-2005 02:55 PM               

quote:

---

Physics isn’t pseudo science.

---

quote:

---

And the longest running stride possible is defined by your longest walking stride possible.

---

IP: Logged

posted Oct-24-2005 04:59 PM            

IP: Logged