posted Oct-24-2005 05:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:
Tigger,

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.

---

I'm afraid you're wrong again. There's only ONE way for an airplcraft to fly and that's by creating enough lift to offset it's mass. And yes, I DO understand the science. It's called fluid dynamics in case you hadn't heard. If you don't understand just say so instead of spouting gibberish.

And since you're such a great observer of animals in their natural habitat....why don't you go looking for a bird that has an unstable wing design like the X29?

[This message has been edited by tigger (edited Oct-24-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-25-2005 02:27 AM            

Early years
Thomas had a late start in his schooling due to childhood illnesses. His mind often wandered and shortly into his schooling his teacher, Alexander Crawford, was overheard calling him "addled." This ended Edison's three-months of formal schooling. His mother had been a school teacher in Canada and happily took over the job of schooling her son in his academics. Mrs. Edison encouraged and taught her son to read and experiment. Many of his lessons came from reading R.G. Parker's School of natural philosophy. Edison's life in Port Huron, Michigan was a bittersweet experience. Partially deaf since adolescence, he became a telegraph operator after he saved the life of J.U. MacKenzie's son, Jimmie, from being struck by a runaway railcar. MacKenzie was so grateful that he took Edison under his wing and trained him as a telegraph operator. Edison's deafness aided him with his telegraphy work as it blocked out noises and prevented Edison from hearing the telegrapher sitting next to him.(...)
[From Wikipedia]

Also instructive - Percy Cerutty's life story:
http://www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2003/sportsf/s823522.asp

P.S. Richard Feynman (single 'n')

IP: Logged

posted Oct-25-2005 11:00 AM               

quote:

---

weaknesss

---

quote:

---

antilope

---

quote:

---

Most of these inventions were not completely original but improvements of earlier patents, and were actually made by his numerous employees.

---

quote:

---

For example, contrary to public perception, Edison did not invent the electric light bulb.

---

quote:

---

As an individual in sports research for 13 years

---

quote:

---

Studying the women of Kenya

---

quote:

---

Office of Science and Technology has offered me a grant to train full time to compete and prove my technique in competition.

---

quote:

---

my speed skating student Sandy Snakenberg

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

I'm a mimic, that's the formal title of my field of science.

---

tigger:

quote:

---

a pile of steaming turds carefully covered with pseudo scientific phrases to impress the ignorant masses.

---

[This message has been edited by hopper3011 (edited Oct-25-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-25-2005 03:50 PM               

How fast you can walk is the definition of biomechanic perfection as an athlete. Since running is simply power added to walking biomechanics, how fast you can walk proves your efficiency. It's proof is in a lower heart rate for the same speed, walking or running. Wouldn't you want to run with the least amount of energy necessary?

Hopper,

you keep missing one short quote. "Genius" by Toney Veny(currently the sprint coach at UCLA). That was his comment after watching me run. Oh, and "If I were a distance coach, I'd be all over it" is another. "Low fatigue index," was another of his observations.

I would think a geek like you would be all over the STAR TREK Bird of Prey? That's what defines them in wing structure.

And the X-29 principle isn't anything to do with fluid dynamics at all. I applied it first to speed skating. It's a principle of balance, not motion. But I figured an expert in aeronautic engineering as you would easily have spotted that connection.
The balance gives it it's efficiency in design, the wings are just built around them.

Didn't you notice the X-29 has no counterbalance wing forces from the description? It doesn't have the same drag factors as a traditional airplane. For humans utilizing unstable balance eliminates the biomechanic drag of arm swing in running.

I got rid of the counterbalance arm swing in skating, which made it easier to figure out how to get rid of it in walking and running. The same energy efficiency of the airplane carries over to running as well.

And I know of no running coach that teaches unstable running biomechanics.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-26-2005 12:24 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Oct-26-2005 01:14 PM               

Get a stack of books with 10-15lbs and walk down a hallway from one end to the other. Walk your way and in return simply try to walk pulling your weight. Is it easier?

The math may go over your head, but it's your head that matters. That's what I don't understand. Anyone can take the test, but nobody yet has.

Just simply try it and tell me what you feel.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-26-2005 01:55 PM               

quote:

---

Getting from point A to B is what it's all about.

---

IP: Logged

posted Oct-27-2005 12:21 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2005 01:57 PM               

To increase your speed, you have to alter your running biomechanics. And to do that you have to figure out what measurements you're going to measure, and what measurements you're going to change, and how you're going to change them to increase speed.

Learning to walk faster is the only comprehensive method for testing the opportunities you have for higher speed. It's the one measurement that incorporates linear rise, lateral sway, heart rate and stride length into it's factors. Which of these do you not want to improve.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-28-2005 05:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:
[B]One simply can't "run faster."

B]

---

Oh yes you can! You accomplish it by pushing off a little bit harder than before. For some strange reason this results in a longer stride and a faster pace! And if you want to keep the faster pace for a longer period of time you simply run more than you did before!

Running is simple. It's people who screw it up.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-29-2005 02:12 AM            

...ssssingle, are you ssssure?
---------------
same (about sportjester):
Lie #1
Lie #2
etc.

Yep, sportjester lied. Unlike Clinton, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, FDR, JFK, NBC, CBS, ABC, PhDs, BScs, and almost everyone else. He lied. Oh, and he hasn't produced any world records (everyone else does). And his biomechanics conjectures are surreal acrobatics. Yep.
Dear Hoppie, you have said the above 3011 times already, and counting. This is basically everything you've been saying here for 4 months, day by day, post after post.... And you know what? WE GOT IT. Really.
So you can relax, buddy, unbutton, and have a beer....

------------
tigger:
Oh yes you can! You accomplish it by pushing off a little bit harder
(...)
Running is simple. It's people who screw it up.

Another running technique? "Push-It-Harder"? Or "Poo-s..t-harder"?

Some people, to be precise.

------------
This thread is going nowhere: "Eight pages of circular logic and still the same conclusion." - right notion, laker, applies to all the participants.
One frantic re-visionary, one psychopatic 'pick-on', and a handful of visitors.
Time for me to retire. Here's final letter to sportjester:
--------------
Dear sportjester,
(This letter is from a person wishing you well, so forgive me occasional criticism and bluntness...)

The square minds on this forum haven't noticed, in their hunting zeal, that we deal here not with one, but at least THREE issues, related but distinct:
1 - alledged connection between Kenyan 'firewood' women and Kenyan runners (your article)
2 - the surprising situational walking efficiency of the said Kenyan women
3 - your proposal of the 'walking extension' style or paradigm of distance running

Ad 1)
I advise you to give up on that: it may be a nice take for a running movie, but otherwise - no discernible causation. Ethnic commonality of body build and/or movement - too vague. Your critics gonna jump on you each time you mention it.

Ad 2)
Everybody likes stories like this. And it has an extra advantage of being an independent research.
You can use it as promotional tool and the theoretical source or foundation of your style. Don't get lost in technical or pseudo-scientific details (for God's sake, do not - people hate technicalities), just stress the major issues: no linear rise, step-to-step
80 percent energy transfer, etc.

Ad 3) This is the main point and there is much more that you can do about it. Your idea of extending walking technique to running is legitimate (whatever they squawk), and relatively novel.
But first you need to formalize it and give it a structure. Here's what I mean:
I tried to run the way you recommend: I achieved long stride easily, had a nice sensation of relaxed lower back, and I somehow felt the muscle workload different from usual. But I realized that I really don't know in details what your recommended running form is.

Therefore, instead of pointless kick-boxing on this forum, prepare a formal description of your style:
just main points, minimum of biomechanics jargon, a dozen of simple guidelines, do's and dont's, add some images, add some style-specific exercises, add some general philosophy (minimum!) etc.
This is the basic first step. Then you need to market it. Print the guide, distribute it, publish it on the web (do you have a web site?), ask for feedback. I know that you have some personal contacts, but you need the running millions to be aware of the new style. There are scores of runners out there ready to try something new, even seemingly crazy. Give them something and get valuable feedback - that could be the best argument in support of your concept, not yapping here.
Make a decent video, the current is poor - your video girl even has a marked vertical movement on the treadmill, which is not your intention, I guess. Instructional video is very important.
Give your metod a catchy name ("Magic Vervloet","Bob's shuffle", or such), make up some marketing slogans ("be a faster runner - take a walk!").

Don't be afraid to constantly revise and re-evaluate your assumptions and the principles of the method, and even change them if necessary; no shame in doing so.
For example, a few question marks from me:
- motionless arms are highly unnnatural; keeping upper body frozen must be enforced and costs some energy, I'm afraid. Emil Zatopek did quite fine having intense arms action
- drop that ' the shortest distance between two points', 'perfectly straight line of travel' obsession: lateral sway is normal and negligible for efficiency. You have the tendency to confuse the essential and the irrelevant. Besides: with a long stride the hip movement will naturally be more pronounced
- long and low stride plus heel-ball footwork add up to increased danger of the 'braking effect', as in overstriding. Does the 'pull forward' instead of push model eliminate that inefficiency?
- what about the hamstrings' important job of lifting the feet close to the backside to 'shorten the lever' and quicken the stride?
How does it fit with your style?
And more questions like that.
But I guess it could be fun to deal with such problems and solve them succesfully, and I wish you that.

You probably do not need my advice at all, but take at least one piece of it:
stop the idle squabbles on this forum, focus on the running style.
I hope to hear from you or about you.
Regards.

[This message has been edited by MoonShiver (edited Oct-29-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-29-2005 07:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MoonShiver:
[b]Another running technique? "Push-It-Harder"? Or "Poo-s..t-harder"?

Some people, to be precise.

[This message has been edited by MoonShiver (edited Oct-29-2005).]

---

It's refreshing to be in the presence of someone so clever with words!

At least you agree it works for SOME people. Other than that I believe your consistent (and repetitive) meassag is

1) hopper is right but nasty
2) sport jester is a lunar but maybe he's onto something

Did I miss anything?

Thank you so very much for everything you've brought to this thread!

[This message has been edited by tigger (edited Oct-29-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-29-2005 10:58 AM               

quote:

---

Yep, sportjester lied. Unlike Clinton, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, FDR, JFK, NBC, CBS, ABC, PhDs, BScs, and almost everyone else.

---

quote:

---

Your idea of extending walking technique to running is legitimate (whatever they squawk), and relatively novel.

---

quote:

---

This is basically everything you've been saying here for 4 months, day by day, post after post.... And you know what? WE GOT IT. Really.

---

[This message has been edited by hopper3011 (edited Oct-29-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Oct-29-2005 03:50 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Oct-31-2005 03:24 PM               

“I tried to run the way you recommend: I achieved long stride easily, had a nice sensation of relaxed lower back, and I somehow felt the muscle workload different from usual. But I realized that I really don't know in details what your recommended running form is.”

Moonie, what you experienced is simply what I wanted to accomplish here. I didn’t change your physical running form and that’s what I wanted to prove. The difference you noticed requires in reality a phenomenal alteration in your technique. All I did was change your mental running technique. It’s still a mystery so don’t worry about it.

Most “expert” advice requires weeks or months of training to notice any difference, but you were able to do it with only a mental change. That’s pretty cool, don’t you think? How does it feel to run like a cat, or fly like the best fighter plane in the world? You’re now running completely unstable, and it’s a whole new world isn’t it?

I simply appreciate your willingness to try my ideas for yourself. Anyone can do it, but the mental change is the hardest hurdle for humans to overcome. A gracious thanks indeed.

In answer to your questions.

For example, a few question marks from me:
- motionless arms are highly unnnatural; keeping upper body frozen must be enforced and costs some energy, I'm afraid. Emil Zatopek did quite fine having intense arms action

You’ve just discovered a new way to think about running, and now that’s creating a whole new set of questions, which is expected and most appreciated.

In learning to pull your weight, you’ve been introduced to your horizontal axis. Pulling your weight gets rid of the muscular stress to your lower spine holding up your torso. I spoke to the reasons in an earlier post.

- drop that ' the shortest distance between two points', 'perfectly straight line of travel' obsession: lateral sway is normal and negligible for efficiency. You have the tendency to confuse the essential and the irrelevant. Besides: with a long stride the hip movement will naturally be more pronounced

Shortest distance between two points may seem like an obsession, but it’s called your vertical axis. Mastering it is critical if you want a 20% increase in speed. It gets rid of all pronation and supination.

I refer to your feet as clock hands. What time to you run? Watch how others walk around you? Do you notice the variation? It’s about rotation of your entire leg. You can test it climbing stairs.

Walk up a set of stairs naturally and wrap your hand around your butt as you climb. Look down at your feet as you step and feel the gluteus medial firing. If you take the time to rotate your entire leg straight forward with your feet representing 12’Oclock in posture, then you’ve been introduced to that axis.

What you’ll feel with your hand on your behind, is that your motion is straight up the stairs on the vertical axis perfectly in front of you as you’re pulling your body up, you’ll notice different muscles firing to get you up those stairs.

What you’ll feel is how your gluteus maximus is now a part of the firing to pull your torso over your kneecap. That muscle is the strongest muscle in your body and you can’t use it running unless you run one foot in front of the other. Getting rid of counterbalance arm swing is simply a byproduct of using your gluteus maximus and vital to higher speed.

If you do get to the point of running to centerline, what you’ll discover is that the closer you reach that biomechanic definition, the less hip rotation you’ll have, which will only increase your stride length. You’ll be well compensated with higher speed for your efforts.

- long and low stride plus heel-ball footwork add up to increased danger of the 'braking effect', as in overstriding. Does the 'pull forward' instead of push model eliminate that inefficiency?

Bingo!!!! Pulling your weight erases that biomechanic fact from your mental running dictionary…

- what about the hamstrings' important job of lifting the feet close to the backside to 'shorten the lever' and quicken the stride?

The job of the hamstrings completely changes. Pulling your weight allows you to increase your stride and initiate your heel strike further out in front of you. The hamstring gets to work in greater efficiency by firing first which increases the efficiency of the quadriceps.
-
-
How does it fit with your style?
And more questions like that.

If you can do it, anyone can…

And to your high expense public relations perspective, I don’t have the income to do so at this point. So if this works, tell a friend and have them join in this discussion…

And if you find yourself running by people, tell me if you can see their inefficiencies in comparison. And if you run with friends and they seem to be far more tired than you are, write me and let me know

In fact, I'm writing a book to teach this in greater detail, but to explain it, I need the questions from runners and others. I need the experience of this to see how people respond.

IP: Logged

posted Oct-31-2005 05:31 PM               

quote:

---

I think it's kind of sad that you get such pleasure out of making fun of people.

---

quote:

---

After all, he does not sell thousands of worthless compilation "running advice" books as others do, does not charge hundreds of $$ for 'running lessons' or speeches, or other magic pills.

---

quote:

---

In fact, I'm writing a book to teach this in greater detail

---

IP: Logged

posted Nov-01-2005 02:19 PM               

So if I am writing a book, why not take advantage of something new for free. I'm giving it away here, and that's fine.
If Moonie can try my ideas and appreciate them, why not you?

IP: Logged

posted Nov-10-2005 11:58 AM               

How goes running like a Kenyan?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2006 10:56 AM              

I am going to try running the full marathon this year And going to use his technique pullin one. As every one can see that I am not a runner. But this will hopefully help every one out to settle this argument.
Among firends i am so called the anti christ of running.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2006 11:02 AM              

I am going to try running the full marathon this year And going to use his technique pullin one. As every one can see that I am not a runner. But this will hopefully help every one out to settle this argument.
Among firends i am so called the anti christ of running.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2006 11:28 AM              

I am going to try running the full marathon this year And going to use his technique pullin one. As every one can see that I am not a runner. But this will hopefully help every one out to settle this argument.
Among firends i am so called the anti christ of running.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2006 11:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ak47:

Among firends i am so called the anti christ of running.

---

Among fir ends I am called the anti christ of beetles.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2006 01:35 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Jun-19-2006 12:01 AM               

With their head of trainers as a student I measured his running by heart rate and at 6MPH comparing his running with my technique

With his own running he was at a heart rate of 176BPM and after only one and a half hours of personal instruction from me his heart rate was 155BPM for the same speed...

Since heart rate is a passive measurement of efficiency, I think it shows a defined proof of efficiency

IP: Logged