Great preprint. Give it a look.
Much of the economy seems to be from increasing stride rate.
1) Is the Vaporfly 4% DEAD? 6.5% > 4%?
2) Is this possible a useful tool for those trying to train towards a higher stride rate?
Discus and happy holidays
Great preprint. Give it a look.
Much of the economy seems to be from increasing stride rate.
1) Is the Vaporfly 4% DEAD? 6.5% > 4%?
2) Is this possible a useful tool for those trying to train towards a higher stride rate?
Discus and happy holidays
It'd be interesting to see how this affects well trained athletes and athletes with naturally high stride freq. I would assume diminishing returns, but nonetheless intriguing.
You could build something like this pretty incognito into compression shorts. If you wore a fanny pack battery source, maybe even motorize it.
I can't believe I've seen the day where a BioRxiv preprint is posted on letsrun
This is why all those goons who tell you to stretch so much are fools.
yeah buddy - ronnie coleman is right! wrote:
This is why all those goons who tell you to stretch so much are fools.
LOL...... Coleman's life as a former pig has caught up with him in the karma department. All the drugs he shot up while persecuting others for way less has come back to bite him in his needle scarred ass.
His 14 inch arms look great wheeling his dead torso around in his wheelchair. Hahahahaha.....
Yeah, buddy.......light weight (light weight oil for his wheels......hahahaha)
Preprints are the future!!!!
It's clear that much connective tissue has energy-return roles. I like simple studies like this that work so surprisingly well.
$8000 exoskeleton or $12 exercise band ??
I skimmed through the actual paper. I don't think it would work for elite runners. The tests were done at 10min/mile pace. All the participants had a knee flexion of less than 90 degrees AND knee flexion was even less with the exoband. In short, it helps slower runners do "the marathon shuffle," that near straight-legged stride where the toe barely gets above the pavement on the backswing.
Basically, the exoband *might* help 4:20 marathoners get closer to 3:59, but it's not going to help 3:02 runners go 2:59.
+1
(This is like that norwegian report that 4x4 intervals is the best way to improve V02max and running speed. It turned out they put some lazy slobs into the equation)
+1 was for Fisky's insight
Here's a rubberband training video for runners.
There’s always diminishing returns with highly trained runners. The 4% isn’t 4% for kipchoge. Let’s see
Discuss vs discus
It's an interesting study that comes with a lot of limitations.
As Fisky pointed out, the study used recreational runners, but only had them running 9:56 pace per mile.
The 6.4% improvement they are citing was the 4th trial done at the end of the second day of testing. (Day 1, Trial 1, without bands) was the control and (Day 1, trial 2, with bands) showed a 3.8% improvement in energy expenditure. Their seconds day of testing used a first trial (Day 2 , trial 3, with weak bands) used bands that were 2 orders of magnitude weaker to try to show that the strength of the bands was significant, though this showed the same improvement that (day 1, trial 2) showed. It was only in the final trial (Day 2, trial 4, with bands) that they saw the 6.4% figure.
Without having a control group that tests without bands each time it's hard to say that the subjects aren't simply warming-up or getting used to the test causing those numbers. Weaker bands, as used in trial 3, shouldn't have shown the exact same improvement as in trial 2 which used stronger bands. In both cases we're seeing that the second test shows about a 3-3.5% improvement in running economy at very low velocities.
This looks more like the subjects are getting accustomed to the testing.
It's beyond the scope of the study, but it would be interesting to see if there is any PAP effects when the bands are removed. Especially considering that the bands are attached ankle-to-ankle (unlikely to get overlooked by even the 60+ year old officials).
In the same vein of PAP, it did drastically improve stride rate, but again this was at a low speed with small amplitudes of joint movements. If this can be maintained at maximal velocities then it may be an option to retrain some neural pathways for speed development. I recently saw a simplifaster article (
https://simplifaster.com/articles/the-science-of-assisted-speed-in-sport/
)that mentioned this though Carl Vale wasn' in favor of bands for that kind of work.
Ultimately, they need controls to see if people aren't just getting used to the testing protocol and then see how this affects higher level athletes or at least athletes running at faster speeds. Eventually, if everything else checks out, seeing what the training effects are after bands are removed would be interesting; we obviously can't race in them.
fisky wrote:
I skimmed through the actual paper. I don't think it would work for elite runners. The tests were done at 10min/mile pace. All the participants had a knee flexion of less than 90 degrees AND knee flexion was even less with the exoband. In short, it helps slower runners do "the marathon shuffle," that near straight-legged stride where the toe barely gets above the pavement on the backswing.
Basically, the exoband *might* help 4:20 marathoners get closer to 3:59, but it's not going to help 3:02 runners go 2:59.
so it would've worked for Alberto Salazar?
Discuss vs Discus wrote:
Discuss vs discus
You must be new here you fecker.
This and only this.
maybe cadence is also why this belt-like device (unpowered) improves 8%
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/well/move/a-device-that-makes-running-faster-and-easier.html