posted Jul-27-2007 04:39 PM               

At 6'3" and 205lbs, I'm not an elite running physique.

I don't teach running, I reteach people how to walk.

Running speed doesn't matter, how efficiently you can walk determines how efficiently you can run.

Unlike traditional coaches who push speed hoping for biomechanic efficiency for improvement, I study biomechanic efficiency knowing that speed will be the end byproduct.

Which do you think is more practical in approach?

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 04:40 PM               

quote:

---

Principle, he claims, has also kept him apart from his son, now 14. The terms of his 1991 divorce allowed Vervloet visitation rights only during the day and only if he picked his son up at his parents' house.

Still furious about those conditions, Vervloet hasn't seen or talked to his son--or his former wife--since 1992. He has also severed ties with the rest of his family, who don't even know where he lives.

---

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 04:49 PM               

"The individual is smaller than the issue."

HMMM interesting quote to the situation, attack me, when you can't attack my arguements???

But how does my relationship(or non relationship) with my son or family have anything to do with running biomechanics...

You also don't mention the first quote... "Genius"

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 05:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:
I'm not a runner, I'm a researcher. My interest is sports injuries and how to prevent them.

At 6'3" and 205lbs, I'm not an elite running physique.

I don't teach running, I reteach people how to walk.

Running speed doesn't matter, how efficiently you can walk determines how efficiently you can run.

Unlike traditional coaches who push speed hoping for biomechanic efficiency for improvement, I study biomechanic efficiency knowing that speed will be the end byproduct.

Which do you think is more practical in approach?

---

Thanks for the info. I'm not certain which is more practical. Let me read and think about it.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-27-2007 06:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by hopper3011:
http://willametteweek.com/editorial/2807/2279/

---

interesting story, but it doesn't seem to me that 'He leapt from the treadmill, winded. Saliva flying,' indicates a very efficient anything.

As for elite african runners not bobbing up and down or moving around, youtube is a great vehicle for footage

Paul Tergat

Lorna Kiplagat

Meseret Defar and Vivian Cheruiyot Oslo/07

2004 Olympic 10k final

[This message has been edited by JimR (edited Jul-27-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Jul-28-2007 05:24 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
interesting story...

[This message has been edited by JimR (edited Jul-27-2007).]

---

That's an understatement...

IP: Logged

posted Jul-28-2007 06:32 AM               

quote:

---

attack me, when you can't attack my arguements???

---

quote:

---

you lack the intelligence to learn

---

quote:

---

What you really said was that you weren’t smart enough to answer the question.

---

IP: Logged

posted Jul-28-2007 01:58 PM               

What a wonderful contribution. The 04 10K final was perfect to my statement earlier.
The only competitor in the winning group wearing black/blue shorts in comparison with Xing on the X axis expends a significantly higher energy for same speed accomplishment.

The side view comparisons show how distinct her linear rise is with each step.

As the race final lap nears, you can see that when pushed for the last race, she doesn’t have the energy to keep up because she’s a much less efficient runner.

At peak speed Xing’s efficiency in biomechanics played a significant factor.

The question to ask is with the video is looking to each individual runner’s differential in vertical rise. That’s why I call it the light bulb test. The greater the rise per step is increased distance traveled.

That’s why I don’t look to how fast a runner physically runs, I want to know how much energy they waste to achieve that given speed, and linear rise is the easiest measurement to make.

OK hopper,

While I appreciate any article to document my work, Nigel did leave out a few points.

First off, I didn't start out in any way to study human biomechics. When I was married, I was investing in real estate. And unfortunately upon divorce, My wife and my parents didn't want me to have my half of the $500,000 in our investment portfolio. Nigel left out the financial story even after being presented the paperwork...

And of course his phone number is in the article, so why don't you call him and ask him what kind of maggot I am?

How long would it take you to make that kind of money hopper, because I can prove I earned it for less than 20 minutes work.

Unknown to me, my parents decided that I didn't "deserve" that money because I didn't work for it in their eyes. So to take money they also took my son...

So I'm sure that you'd be somewhat pissed off with the people who took that much from you as well, let alone have any interest in being social with them...

When a state has no laws protecting your right to be a father to your own child, and knowing there's nothing you can do about it, especially after being told the only way I can see my son would be to kill my ex wife. It's nice to know that if I killed her, the state would bus my child to me in prison, but won't help me right now....

And if you want to define humiliation, your words mean nothing in comparison to seeing someone else listed as your son's father in his school records with no legal ability to change the records or being threatened with arrest if you wanted to attend a parent confrence

As to branching off into discussing skating,

You missed a step…

When I stated that Sandy was a student, you have to dig a little more to understand the story…

For the first article written specifically about my speed skating work, I taught Jonathan Seutter (a Guiness World Record holder) my technique.

He’s quoted as to the efficiency and it’s application.

http://www.wweek.com/html/cultfeature070799.html

Published in July 1999.

He’s the same JS who wrote the article for Fitness and Speed Skating Times. I taught JS, and JS taught Sandy.

http://www.speedsk8in.com/articles/feb2000/world-records.htm

Written in 2000. The first article photo clearly shows the Praying Mantis application to my technique which is a very distinct difference compared to a traditional skaters body posture which requires a counterbalance arm swing.

As I don’t use a counterbalance arm swing and neither does Sandy, it was Jonathan who taught the biomechanic advantages of skating like a Praying Mantis after learning it from me

So I don’t see it as any stretch to say that Sandy is a student, for learning from one of mine. My philosophies of athletics are easily distinguished as unique.

And as my article predates the FASST publication, prove a photo of Sandy skating with a Mantis posture prior to 1999...

And the balance skills to get rid of arm swing in skating are the same balance skills required to get rid of one’s arm swing in running.

And you’re going to have to explain to me why becoming a more efficient walker can’t translate to a more efficient runner.

Since you can’t run until you learn to walk, why is it illogical to assume that your natural limitations of running biomechanics for speed and distance have no root in your walking biomechanics?

I need to hear the quackery of your logic...

IP: Logged

posted Jul-28-2007 10:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:
[BAnd you’re going to have to explain to me why becoming a more efficient walker can’t translate to a more efficient runner.
[/B]

---

There is a big difference between the walking and running.

While walking you are a mass moving on two rigid supports similar to an inverted pendulum. Here the potential energy (PE) is out of phase with the kinetic energy (KE). One form of energy feeds into the other. At low velocities walking is very efficient. It has a low "cost or transport" (COT).

At velocities above ~2.3 m/s, running is more efficient than walking. Here the potential energy (PE) is in-phase with the kinetic energy (KE), so there is little transfer of one form of energy to the other.

Being a more efficient walker has little or no connection with being an efficient runner.

Ted

IP: Logged

posted Jul-29-2007 03:36 AM               

quote:

---

And you’re going to have to explain to me why becoming a more efficient walker can’t translate to a more efficient runner.

---

IP: Logged

posted Jul-29-2007 09:58 PM               

Obviously you haven’t read anything on race walking. It’s a described event with completely man made rules and technique. For me, it serves the purpose of high speed walking, but the energy expenditure to do so is proven to be inefficient because nobody will walk that way unless they’re racing.

There are biomechanic efficiencies in the race walking technique, but they’re limited simply to the question as to how one walks fast, not efficiently.

Race walkers have absolutely nothing to do with natural walking or running biomechanics of humans, so the race walking connection you're claiming doesn't exist.

Sure race walking is faster than traditional walking, but as a technique, you can’t run using it. You will always be able to achieve a higher speed as a runner than a race walker.

“The knee must be straight from moment
of heel contact until the support leg is in
the vertical position.” quoting one technique website for you (google race walking technique)…

However the limitation to race walking is that the technique allows for a much higher turnover rate to gain speed, but in the end, minimizes stride length because the knee has to remain stiff on surface contact. You don't run that way do you?

Any bend in your weight bearing knee and your swing leg will over stride on contact. If you bend your knee on contact, and a judge sees it, you’re flagged. Multiple flags and you’re disqualified from the race.

The race walking technique interestingly enough applies the same principles of weight transfer. I can walk just as fast as any race walker and still do it with knees bent and slower turn over cadence in my gait.

What race walkers can do is the same as what I do, walk with absolutely no vertical (X-axis) rise in my step either. It’s the principles of balance I use to accomplish the same thing which differs.

http://www.racewalk.com/HowTo/FootPlacement.asp

What I use as well, is what you see in the video of Laura, that every step is done inline and on the X-axis. She walks with the same foot fall pattern, but with no straight leg.

And while Laura is walking to centerline, she has no arm swing. In comparison, race walkers to me look as if they’re having a seizure if they were side by side with her at indentical speed.

Here's the distinction. If you read the original article, the women of Kenya require the added wood weight to induce the efficiencies they need in gait alteration. Take away the wood, and their gait efficiencies are identical to you and every other runner out there. The difference is how they handle the added weight of the wood.

Kenyan women adding the weight, have no push off with each step. And since they don’t waste the energy in push off, the added weight they carry doesn’t matter to their walking biomechanics until the weight load exceeds 20% of their bodyweight and hence their economic efficiencies.

Since you walk with a natural push off, any added weight means additional energy expended to lift the weight in push off, and additional energy expended to absorb your landing impact. For Kenyan women, that energy expenditure simply doesn’t exist.

What they can’t do is initiate their gait change without the weight. I can

Yea, I never traveled to Africa, and yes I watched my neighbors walking to the corner Laundromat. However what they also showed me was that carrying their laundry, they could walk with no push off like race walkers and still use a bent knee in their walking technique.

They use a completely different biomechanic process to accomplish the exact same biomechanics of race walkers.

So that was where I started, comparing those women with race walkers.

They don't know how they do it, and they don't teach it to their offspring in any formal training course. So explain how the women pass on their gait alteration skills?

I looked into race walking as an application of the balance skills the Kenyan women use, but the unnatural technique voids that out.

And teaching a walking technique with no push off is wonderfully received by knee surgery patients simply because it removes the impact forces to the surgical site with each step they take. Less pain, faster recovery gain.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-30-2007 08:26 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:
The only competitor in the winning group wearing black/blue shorts in comparison with Xing on the X axis expends a significantly higher energy for same speed accomplishment.

---

That's called selective viewing on your part, typical of those who view the world through blinders.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-30-2007 04:19 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Jul-31-2007 12:47 PM               

How can my viewpoint be selective? A group of runners with one demonstrating through measurement that she’s traveling a lot further in total distance with relation to the linear distance of the race.

For her to run faster, she would have to run exponentially further.

And increasing her travel distance exponentially would also increase her energy consumption by multiples. She was burning energy at a far higher rate compared with the others of the group for the same speed. Which is why she one of the quickest to fall from the pack as the final lap pace increased.

That’s what the light bulb test is, measuring the actual three dimensional graph your running biomechanics produce. And with that test alone, her travel distance was her speed limitation. As the more efficient runners did have the biomechanics to run faster by running a shorter linear distance, that’s not selection, that’s refinement.

Which is the underlying answer to your question hopper

Why focus on walking? Because it’s a focus on refinement. Your top speed is determined by your biomechanics and their efficiency limits. Refine your efficiency and speed isn’t a goal, it’s a natural byproduct of improving efficiency.

As it’s commonly referred to as “power applied to walking” the statement is true about running. There are fixed points on your body I can measure as you walk. Those points are in identical location when running. Your walking and running biomechanics are identical as a three dimensional athlete by measuring fixed points on your body.

So in looking at videos of different runners, the faster runners had a narrower variation of those fixed points in both walking and running.

As example, I measure the distance of the centerline of each leg’s knee in ratio to its distance from your body’s natural midsagittal plane. At walking or running. Those measured points kept the same displacement ratio as speeds increased.

So if I want to improve you as a runner, your knees have statistically uneven measurements from your body’s centerline. The greater the measurement from centerline differential, the slower you move

Through improving your walking skills, I can teach you to walk by equalizing the motion of your femur so that your knees equalize in their lateral displacement measurements on the Z axis.

The more equal your legs work, the more equal your upper body works, and thus expends less energy for a given speed with less inequality to compensate for.

That’s what a counterbalance arm swing does, compensates for the inequalities of leg motion in your walking and running biomechanics.

And by decreasing upper body rotation, improves your body’s ability to increase turnover rates of one’s legs by increasing the stability of the torso for the legs to swing from.

And to teach you that subtle of biomechanic change is impossible to do running. Your brain doesn’t have the self monitoring skills to do so.

Using a treadmill, I can develop the strength in your legs through walking to override your previous inequality and equalize your femur motion. I use a mirror for instant feedback.

You can see the measurements I’m referring to, and self monitor your improvements to make them a natural change in your biomechanics.

I know that through heart rate measure, when you naturalize in motion equalized femur measurements, your heart rate will drop for the same speed and a peak speed improvement will also result.

[This message has been edited by sport jester (edited Jul-31-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Jul-31-2007 06:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:
Jim,

How can my viewpoint be selective? A group of runners with one demonstrating through measurement that she’s traveling a lot further in total distance with relation to the linear distance of the race.

For her to run faster, she would have to run exponentially further.

And increasing her travel distance exponentially would also increase her energy consumption by multiples. She was burning energy at a far higher rate compared with the others of the group for the same speed. Which is why she one of the quickest to fall from the pack as the final lap pace increased.

That’s what the light bulb test is, measuring the actual three dimensional graph your running biomechanics produce. And with that test alone, her travel distance was her speed limitation. As the more efficient runners did have the biomechanics to run faster by running a shorter linear distance, that’s not selection, that’s refinement.

---

The girl you're pointing out was Lornah Kiplagat. She was no different in head motion than the girl who finished second (Dibaba) but you kinda missed that...maybe it's Kiplagat's height that threw you off. Ironically, in reference to your discussion of Kenyan women and their efficency of movement, Kiplagat was the lone Kenyan of the group...the rest were Ethiopian and, of course, Xing.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-01-2007 04:26 AM               

quote:

---

Why focus on walking?

---

Unfortunately, the evidence, far from supporting your proposal, points diametrically away from it, and, despite another mass of verbiage, you have failed to supply even the slightest thread of proof, in the form of race results, to the contrary.
Instead of another 1000 word post in which you repeat your idiotic "theory" with exactly the same holes in logic and sloppy to non-existent (or downright fallacious) "research", why not try a single hyperlink to a race result?

[This message has been edited by hopper3011 (edited Aug-01-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Aug-01-2007 10:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
interesting story, but it doesn't seem to me that 'He leapt from the treadmill, winded. Saliva flying,' indicates a very efficient anything.

As for elite african runners not bobbing up and down or moving around, youtube is a great vehicle for footage

Paul Tergat

Lorna Kiplagat

Meseret Defar and Vivian Cheruiyot Oslo/07

2004 Olympic 10k final

[This message has been edited by JimR (edited Jul-27-2007).]

---

Wow. Tergat really moves up and down.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-01-2007 01:46 PM               

So with that physical reference, I look at any runner and judge the same. Can you run with no arm swing? Which means your pelvic cavity is in rotation as well, which creates an unstable swing point for your legs to move from.

Kiplagat’s uneven technique was most evident in her hair for me. Watch the video from the last lap footage, and you can see how much more movement there is in her hair bun than the others.

Fredurie hints to that reality. Just because you're a fast runner, doesn't mean your an efficient runner.

And hopper,

Can you run with the same physical description as above?

You missed the connection. The fastest walking gait of one foot in front of the other doesn't translate into running because of the knee limitation. That's what I removed.

ROM-Range of motion. To walk fast, requires one foot on the ground at all times, so to have the fastest walk possible requires a longer stride and more efficient turnover technique in your gait. And most important to walking speed for maximum stride length, requires a stable hip platform to equalize your leg swing. However any arm swing completly eliminates that biological necessity.

Why do you think “Core Stability” is the cute phrase of the day for fitness? If your core is unstable, then your leg swing is unstable and renders you more vulnerable to injury.

But rather than waste energy stabilizing your "core" wouldn't it be more logical to stabilize the leg motion, who's instability your "core" has to manage in the first place?

And with race walkers following centerline walking, you’ll note above that I do as well. Thus taking efficient walking speed biomechanics into running. I can do it, race walkers can’t

So by teaching inline walking with a bent knee, keeps the torso completely isolated from gait inequality, because each leg is moving in perfect biomechanic symetry. The test results are a significant decrease in energy(20 beat per minute heart rate decrease) consumption for maintaining the same speed. Thus by definition that proves a more efficient gait in comparison.

The heart rate improvements tested are the direct opposite to what results when following the "Pose" method. Which would you choose?

You want race results? So do I. However, you seem to forget that you've never done what I've done. As you aren't the one to create a new way to perform any sport, I only seek your advice if you have. Since you've paved no path before me, then following yours is a waste of my time.

Testing is a long slow methodical process. You seem to think in your arrogance that everyone will come running to learn if my technique is as great as I claim. Sorry, human nature isn't that straight forward.

I'm jumping through the hoops to prove it. How many running coaches do you know that have ever taught through a Niketown store?

I would state that such an event is proof enough to someone like you, that I've been thoroughly tested by Nike before teaching anything "BS" with their company reputation at stake.

You want race results? So do I. However you seem to overlook reality. For track, I get rid of the starting blocks as my students don't use them because they slow them down.

So to listen to coaches berate my students in front of others before their race and demand that they start from the blocks defeats the whole purpose of improving track times. So how can I get best track results, if coaches interfere with my students to create them.

Nike understands this, obviously you don't...

Even though Silas is still running three seconds over his last season PR without following my technique through mechanical limitation, his coach refuses to let him follow my training to acheive long term results. And as to coaches, that's what I deal with, as other coaches refuse to allow me near their students.

And the most important aspect is that track shoes demand a forefoot landing when I teach a heel strike landing. That's the Nike connection to this, how will running my way alter the design of their track shoes?

When I met Silas, he couldn't run 10MPH and today he can outrun a 12MPH treadmill. Last time I checked, that's a pretty good accomplishment considering I did it with only a couple of hours teaching him.

I deal in the real work of doing this hopper, while you sit at your computer screen demanding something that doesn't just magically appear for your whimsy. I'll listen to Nike before I ever dream of listening to you.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-01-2007 05:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:
Jim,
Kiplagat’s uneven technique was most evident in her hair for me. Watch the video from the last lap footage, and you can see how much more movement there is in her hair bun than the others.

hah! That's what you were basing it on? She has the longest outward braid of the bunch...it's bound to move more than the others.

Fredurie hints to that reality. Just because you're a fast runner, doesn't mean your an efficient runner.

and that falls smack into the problem with your theory. Fast runners don't need to be efficient, just fast. Efficiency doesn't necessarily breed speed. Formula 1 cars are horribly inefficient, exploiting a relatively small portion of the power curve of combustion and getting crap mileage. But no Jetta TDI stands a chance off the line against one, nor anywhere along the road.

Efficiency comes with a cost and can generally only be worked within limited boundaries. When those boundaries are exceeded within scope, the costs outweigh the benefits and what you sought to gain is lost.

---

IP: Logged

posted Aug-02-2007 01:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
Fast runners don't need to be efficient, just fast. Efficiency doesn't necessarily breed speed.

---

Jim,

That is a VERY insightful statement. I never thought of it that way.

A Clydesdale can run just as efficiently as an elite world-class runner.

Ted

IP: Logged

posted Aug-02-2007 05:07 AM               

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:

---

You want race results? So do I.

---

quote:

---

However, you seem to forget that you've never done what I've done.

---

quote:

---

I'll listen to Nike before I ever dream of listening to you.

---

You've been quite comprehensively debunked on this thread. Given your obvious mental instabilities I don't expect you to accept your spanking and skulk off as you should, but as you seem hell bent on destroying your own credibility as a coach, please keep posting, I'll be glad to keep dishing it out for as long as you want to take it.

[This message has been edited by hopper3011 (edited Aug-02-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Aug-03-2007 12:53 PM               

Your racing car analogy is interesting. I look at it from the perspective as human racers as well. I often ask my students if they consider themselves as runners who race, or racers who run?

There are a lot of training analogies to road racing for runners.

If efficiency didn’t matter, then why did the
diesel-powered Audi R10 TDI win the 24 hour Le Mans? Fewer stops and thus less time lost for fuel maybe? And the top spots were both diesel with a gas engine car 11 laps behind to take third even with a 10% smaller gas tank in the diesel cars…

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9730782-7.html

http://www.supercars.net/carpics/3335/2006_Audi_R102.jpg

And to your hair bun comments. Bundled behind their heads, there were multiple women with similar hair styles, and with little bounce in comparison.

Every racer has to be fast, but they also choose their environment to compete in. I look at it from a coaching perspective, if I’m going to invest my time in teaching anyone, I’ll look to the least efficient athlete at any given speed as the one I’d like to coach.

If they can compete by speed and have greater biomechanic room to improve, then they haven’t maxed out their top speed potential for any given race distance.

And if my perspective weren’t accurate, then why did she fall from the lead pack so quickly one the pace was pushed?

And hopper,

My relationship with Nike’s sports research manager has spanned over two years….

I just finished a track season with a runner, and those results are what impressed the trainers of the football team I’m working with this season.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-03-2007 04:02 PM               

quote:

---

I just finished a track season with a runner, and those results are what impressed the trainers of the football team I’m working with this season.

---

quote:

---

You want race results? So do I.

---

IP: Logged

posted Aug-03-2007 04:52 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sport jester:
Jim,

If efficiency didn’t matter, then why did the
diesel-powered Audi R10 TDI win the 24 hour Le Mans?

---

For starters, I would prefer that you don't adopt tactics such as misrepresenting my stance/opinions. I have not said efficiency does not matter, I said it's value is generally limited.

Secondly, you do realize that in events like Le Mans and Dakar that they permit special privileges to diesel vehicles to at least let them be competitive against their gasoline counterparts?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-03-2007 08:49 PM               

Running economy is energy consumption per distance at a sub-maximal speed. I thought that it was analogous to fuel economy that is in miles/gallon. This is incorrect.

Running economy is analogous to gallons per mile at cruising speed. The lower the running economy value, the better or more efficient the runner. At the end of the abstract the phrase “a decrease of running economy in triathletes” represents a beneficial change.

I also found a more extensive excerpt from the article. It’s pretty informative. It’s at:

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9548064_ITM

Ted

IP: Logged