POSE running (i.e., performance running) teaches a very short stride with high cadence....up to 90+ steps per minute if I recall.
POSE running (i.e., performance running) teaches a very short stride with high cadence....up to 90+ steps per minute if I recall.
pose chi wrote:
POSE running (i.e., performance running) teaches a very short stride with high cadence....up to 90+ steps per minute if I recall.
The general "optimal" stride rate is 180 strides/min. Might want to check your "performance running" literature.
Even if they meant 90 steps per minute per foot, that's 180 total, which is not a new discovery, people figured this out 20 (or more?) years ago (see Daniels, et al).
I'd LOVE to see your mathematical justification for why this is the case.
wellnow wrote:
Laws of physics. Although there is no formula for predicting improvement from weight loss, because you have to learn a longer stride to get the benefits.
So a 3% loss of fat should give you a 3% improvement in pace in a long run (where wind resistance is negligable)but that improvement will only happen if your stride length/rate improves 3% with the same endurance ability.
I did mean 90 steps on each side (L/R) per minute. You smartass.
POSE running is for hobbyjoggers, see other thread for more info.
Not quite, kiddo.
wellnow wrote:
Laws of physics. Although there is no formula for predicting improvement from weight loss, because you have to learn a longer stride to get the benefits.
So a 3% loss of fat should give you a 3% improvement in pace in a long run (where wind resistance is negligable)but that improvement will only happen if your stride length/rate improves 3% with the same endurance ability.
So a 100% loss of fat should give you a 100% improvement in pace in a long run (where wind resistance is negligable)but that improvement will only happen if your stride length/rate improves 100% with the same endurance ability.
Why will the same V-8 make a Mustang go faster than a pickup truck? Same engine moving less weight.
Losing weight may also be associated with the lower body fat percentage that you get with more training, there's obviously a limit to how much weight you can lose without harming performance, etc. etc. but the basic principle is approximately the same engine moving less weight.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble. You are a hobbyjogger if you swear by POSE method
pose chi wrote:
Not quite, kiddo.
pose chi wrote:
I did mean 90 steps on each side (L/R) per minute. You smartass.
I accounted for this possibility in my pose. The fact of the matter remains that the brilliant breakthrough you're talking about (180 s/min) has been known by the general running populace for decades.
They failed, however, to put a cool marketing name on it.
Don't try to use a car analogy. Also, don't confuse acceleration with constant speed running performance.The same power with lighter weight will improve ACCELERATION in your simplistic automotive physics example. Unless you are at the limits of your ability to accelerate for an entire distance race (unlikely, since a human can hit top speed in ~50 meters), this won't help you.There may also be top speed effects in your example due to aerodynamics, but once again, not the same as running.
Just another running guy wrote:
Why will the same V-8 make a Mustang go faster than a pickup truck? Same engine moving less weight.
Losing weight may also be associated with the lower body fat percentage that you get with more training, there's obviously a limit to how much weight you can lose without harming performance, etc. etc. but the basic principle is approximately the same engine moving less weight.
work = mass × distance
What is the lowest a man's body fat can go without become injurious to his health? Noakes (pg. 104) cites the lowest ever tested was "Mosquito" Madibeng @ 3.5% yet the NY Times says Sandoval was 1% .
Is there no arbitrary figure? One just needs to go be feel and see at what level the body starts suppressing immune function. Anybody have a definitive source?
I see them as two separate things.Immediate improvements will come due to simple application of the laws of physics. The runner will apply his existing running knowledge to generate a constant force with his foot against the ground. The same force will propel a smaller mass farther, in the same time, leading to higher speed, without learning anything new.Also immediate improvements will come in efficiency, as less energy is required to turnover lighter legs at the same rate (or the same energy will lead to a faster turnover).Longer term improvements will come, as the runner learns to optimize his running with the new weight and altered running style.
wellnow wrote:
Well plenty runners here do ask for a formula.
Anyways, you completely wrong when you say: "Adapting to a new stride is independent of weight loss."
That's just plain daft. Fat runners who run a lot have short strides. Thin runners who run a lot have long strides.
The point I was making is that as you lose the weight you have to learn a longer stride. What's so hard to grasp about that fact.
Sandavol was not 1%
http://www.healthchecksystems.com/bodyfat.htm
About 2-4% is needed for bodily functions. Below that you die.
Keep in mind the vast majority of people will not function well once down to even 6%.
Sustaining a very low body fat % is part of the "talent" associated with distance running.
I would run upwards of 26 mile long runs, 130+ mile weeks, averaging 97 miles a week for an entire year and still never dropped down under 8% as a runner.
Alan
should have been the 1st reply wrote:
work = mass × distance
Yes, I thought the NY Times would do a little better research before publishing such a ridiculously low number.
The key is to let one's intuition be the kind (what to eat, when/how much to run, etc.) and the rest will take care of itself. Striving for a certain weight or bf is a recipe for disaster.
The problem is that most LR degenerates don't do pose/chi despite the fact that it has been proven to make one faster and more resistant to injury. Explain that, engineer.
make that:
"The key is to let one's intuition be the guide"
When you run, you're pushing yourself up in addition to forward with each stride. Heavier body = more work per step. A pound doesn't make much of an energy difference, but it's also possible that the extra weight on landing is more damaging to muscles, causing more fatigue.