I have a theory too wrote:
need more information wrote:You're contradicting yourself, or else you're quite dense or both. Anyway, what you said makes no sense.
No need to insult. It's your training, do what you want. Have a good day.
No insult intended.
rekrunner wrote:
"genetic dogma is a red herring"
Men are faster than women, because of a bunch of genes.
What separates Bolt and Bekele are a bunch of genes.
Semenya Caster -- a couple of genes.
Genetics is an important factor to determine if you can even play the game. Unless you want to propose an alternate intelligent design theory, you cannot just dismiss the relevance of genetics at determining who the players are.
No amount of hopping, concentration, and increasing my stride will allow me to beat Bolt, Bekele, Rudisha, Webb, or Geb, or Radcliffe. My genes make me look more like Popeye, but spinach doesn't have the same effect on me.
New world record holders will surely have to train as good, or better than current world record holders, but genetic variability will still produce new athletes who will break existing records.
J.O. wrote:?
rekrunner wrote:
You always throw out the baby with the bathwater.
******************************************
You can make obvious observations about genetics, but vague generalizations are not part of an intelligent debate.
I have a theory too wrote:
You shouldn't explicitly try to adjust stride length. Stride length takes care of itself with pace. What you need to do is work on good form, good leg lift, light touch, good back kick, no excessive reaching, and lots of volume to build base and running economy.
Stride length is a result of your pace divided by your stride frequency. If your stride frequently is fairly stable, then your stride length simply goes up as your pace goes up...you're moving over the ground faster so you cover more territory per stride. That's all you really need to increase stride length, just run faster. This makes the things you work on pretty standard. Dedication and commitment are more valuable than some hokey theory.
You seem to be denying the importance of the push off and the challenge of improving it.
Nor part of an intelligent design debate.Genetics is not a new idea; it is older than you or me.The number of possible combinations of genes is astronomical, and it is only a question of time that in future generations an athlete will possess a genetic combination that is superior than ever before.If future athletes, who possess a different set of genes than current athletes today, practice a different training, you can not draw any scientifically valid conclusion, as you haven't controlled all the variables.If you are still not convinced, I'll have to bring in the nascent science of genetic doping. (Maybe I should make some kind of pun about the baby in the bathwater...)
J.O. wrote:
You can make obvious observations about genetics, but vague generalizations are not part of an intelligent debate.
So you think that we don't already have the genes to run much faster? You think that such performances requre that the runner/runners would be genetic freaks?
That is a very naive argument, it implies that we humans aren't designed to run fast.
J.O. wrote:
So you think that we don't already have the genes to run much faster? You think that such performances requre that the runner/runners would be genetic freaks?
That is a very naive argument, it implies that we humans aren't designed to run fast.
Fast is a very subjective term. I think most people have the genetic capability to run much, much faster than they do (note: most people don't run at all, most of them that do run are doing it for fun/enjoyment/fitness).
World record holders are already extreme outliers. Are they at their absolute limits? Hard to say. Are they close? Again, hard to say but I would tend to say probably relatively close. That's just an opinion though.
Genetics and genetic potential are extremely hard (maybe impossible) things to determine scientifically.
someone else wrote:
Strides may get longer, but this will simply be a result of better efficiency and better health, and it will get incrementally smaller.
You assume that muscular coordination can develop your stride length and improve race times, but you ignore how this would happen in a race and say it's just so. You can't focus on any one thing and peg it as the key to faster times. Stride length can only increase incrementally as a result of better training. You can't train your stride length. You train yourself to run, and the stride length changes only slightly until it can't get any longer.
The time when longer strides get incrementally smaller is a long way in the future in long distance races. Perhaps in the 100m event this is true but the longer the event the more scope for improvement.
You can train your stride length. Why would you assume this is not possible? The important point here is that the push off can be worked on, to produce a much longer stride than you already have. This is what you are missing from this debate.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
J.O. wrote:So you think that we don't already have the genes to run much faster? You think that such performances requre that the runner/runners would be genetic freaks?
That is a very naive argument, it implies that we humans aren't designed to run fast.
Fast is a very subjective term. I think most people have the genetic capability to run much, much faster than they do (note: most people don't run at all, most of them that do run are doing it for fun/enjoyment/fitness).
World record holders are already extreme outliers. Are they at their absolute limits? Hard to say. Are they close? Again, hard to say but I would tend to say probably relatively close. That's just an opinion though.
Genetics and genetic potential are extremely hard (maybe impossible) things to determine scientifically.
************************************************
Yes, and when runners talk about genetics, they are refering to physical characteristics, and ignoring the psychological make up of the athele. This is the only area of genetics where you can determine that runner A has got what it takes, because he has self belief and determination, and runner B is just a whiner, with excuse after excuse after excuse.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
[World record holders are already extreme outliers. Are they at their absolute limits? Hard to say. Are they close? Again, hard to say but I would tend to say probably relatively close. That's just an opinion though.
With regard to how close they are to their potential, in cardiovascular terms, they are at or just past their peak, as we all are when we are relatively young and well trained. This won't change, but if you consider that running is a series of jumps.......
How far can we jump with each stride whilst still maintaining our normal running style, such that as we get faster, our stride rate increases inversely proportional to ground conatact time?
J.O. wrote:
You can train your stride length. Why would you assume this is not possible? The important point here is that the push off can be worked on, to produce a much longer stride than you already have. This is what you are missing from this debate.
I think the most important criteria is being able to apply the force quickly with each stride, and to repeat the strides quickly, with as little time wasted in between as possible.
What this means is that the rate is the most important criteria, and within this, the ability to apply force quickly at that rate. Some great examples of this are Junxia Wang, Lasse Viren, Filbert Bayi, and Yenew Alamirew.
To me, the criteria to work on regardless of the runner are (1) having a high rate and (2) applying force quickly at that rate. Bekele is a high rate runner. In the study mentioned they tried to depict him as a low rating runner through the race, thus having a longer stride than was typical. But that was not the case. His rate through the race was 186-190 spm, and 216 the last lap. That compares with others who've run the 10k at that speed at 175-179 spm. So his rate was only average during the race, and high at the end, still pointing to the capability of reaching a high rate. Bekele's competitors were not able to reach anywhere close to the rate that he did the last lap.
As a side point, I don't think humans were designed at all, let alone for some narrow purpose to run fast. Do you also think we were designed to throw far, and jump high too, and it's simply a lack of the right training? Compared to many other animals, humans run quite slow. Dr. Lieberman makes some good arguments that we evolved to run long, not fast.I'm just saying you are talking about two different things. Surely everyone has room for improvement, but for most people "running much faster" is not the same as setting "world records". Personal bests and world records are not the same thing, except for a select few people. Western nations produce 1 elite athlete per 20 million persons. I somehow doubt this is because 19,999,999 have yet to discover two-footed jumping, but maybe I'm naive.All this talk about working on strides, can only lead to personal best performances, for 19,999,999 out of every 20,000,000 people.The ones who will set world records will also train hard, plus have an inherent advantage predetermined by their genetic makeup. Faster world records will likely produce longer strides, and quicker stride rates, as you suggest, but that will come from both a higher inherent potential, combined with the right training.
J.O. wrote:
So you think that we don't already have the genes to run much faster? You think that such performances requre that the runner/runners would be genetic freaks?
That is a very naive argument, it implies that we humans aren't designed to run fast.
J.R. wrote:
J.O. wrote:You can train your stride length. Why would you assume this is not possible? The important point here is that the push off can be worked on, to produce a much longer stride than you already have. This is what you are missing from this debate.
I think the most important criteria is being able to apply the force quickly with each stride, and to repeat the strides quickly, with as little time wasted in between as possible.
What this means is that the rate is the most important criteria, and within this, the ability to apply force quickly at that rate. Some great examples of this are Junxia Wang, Lasse Viren, Filbert Bayi, and Yenew Alamirew.
To me, the criteria to work on regardless of the runner are (1) having a high rate and (2) applying force quickly at that rate. Bekele is a high rate runner. In the study mentioned they tried to depict him as a low rating runner through the race, thus having a longer stride than was typical. But that was not the case. His rate through the race was 186-190 spm, and 216 the last lap. That compares with others who've run the 10k at that speed at 175-179 spm. So his rate was only average during the race, and high at the end, still pointing to the capability of reaching a high rate. Bekele's competitors were not able to reach anywhere close to the rate that he did the last lap.
Stride rate comes from two main factors. Natural running style, some people have a naturally higher rate than others, and pace, Bekele is very fast.
You can't say that one sytle is better than another, that is just nonsense.
rekrunner wrote:
The ones who will set world records will also train hard, plus have an inherent advantage predetermined by their genetic makeup. Faster world records will likely produce longer strides, and quicker stride rates, as you suggest, but that will come from both a higher inherent potential, combined with the right training.
In physical terms, World Record breaking talent is extemely common. In psychologicaly terms it is extremely rare.
What is the correlation between tyops and hard training?
J.O. wrote:
In physical terms, World Record breaking talent is extemely common. In psychologicaly terms it is extremely rare.
Is this just a belief, or is it back by anything?
If it is just a belief, that is fine.
I can't believe people still post to this POS thread!
The level of the discourse is abysmal.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
J.O. wrote:In physical terms, World Record breaking talent is extemely common. In psychologicaly terms it is extremely rare.
Is this just a belief, or is it back by anything?
If it is just a belief, that is fine.
*********************************************
There are a million and one things we can excel at. Running is just one of them. So most runners will never achieve a high degree of success simply because they don't prioritize running excellence as their number one goal.
J.O. wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:Is this just a belief, or is it back by anything?
If it is just a belief, that is fine.
*********************************************
There are a million and one things we can excel at. Running is just one of them. So most runners will never achieve a high degree of success simply because they don't prioritize running excellence as their number one goal.
You have to give this fellow credit for never really answering anything and always (successfully) leading into another avenue for vague and endless discussion.
I suspect that the point is to set an all time record for most responses to a completely ridiculous original post. We'll have to wait and see if he gets there.
It's easy to be cynical.