We all need credentials. Zoo keepers, plumbers, drummers. Credentials are what sets a great capitalist republic apart from a crappy communist commune. What makes you think that you don't need credentials? Do you imagine yourself somehow superior to the rest of us? Friend, earn your credentials, then maybe you can contribute to this board in an intellectual manner.
My credentials are a 140 IQ and a 350K per year salary. I also have a beautiful wife and kids and a fancy car and big house and over a million wisely invested in the stock market so I can happily retire young with no worries.
i for one wrote:
like I said Radcliffe ran a 2:15, a good 10 1/2 minutes ahead of me
and from the waist up she has HORRIBLE form.
You are wrong again. The truth is Paula Radcliffe has WORLD CLASS form. It may also be described as WORLD RECORD form. Apparently you are not as good at recognizing good form as you think you are.
u r wrong wrote:
i for one wrote:like I said Radcliffe ran a 2:15, a good 10 1/2 minutes ahead of me
and from the waist up she has HORRIBLE form.
You are wrong again. The truth is Paula Radcliffe has WORLD CLASS form. It may also be described as WORLD RECORD form. Apparently you are not as good at recognizing good form as you think you are.
Dude, you are so anxious to prove this guy wrong that you are not reading his post. Calm down, take a deep breath and continue on in a less accusatory fashion.
He said from the "waist up" she has horrible form but implied that from the waist down she has great form. See, so you guys have more in common than you thought. That's something to build on.
BTW-I think credentials are in order here but maybe being a good capitalist is not one of them...
steppingin wrote:
What credentials do I have? I'm an expert on running mechanics.!
Wonderful! I would like to hear anything you have to share with us about running mechanics.
Since more than one asked: PRs are 3:45, 8:07, 14:07, and 29:30 (road). All in '83. Engineering degree, not fantastic grades, but got an A in Engineering Mechanics: Dynamics. Many insights (for me anyway) into running mechanics during a running comeback in '98-'99. 4:57 mile then. 10 weeks into another comeback now at age 46 (with more insights, I hope). 5:35 mile on Saturday.
About Bekele's form: By pulling the foot up a bit after toeoff, this takes time and requires a pull on the hamstring, but allows the hip flexors to do less work to pull the leg through (more knee bend = easier for hip to pull leg forward - try it). I think the most important thing to realize about this is that it works for Bekele BECAUSE IT FITS HIS SPECIFIC STRENGTHS AND FLEXIBILITIES. <--- sorry for caps, would have used underline or italics if available. :)
Since Bekele has developed this stride, it has now almost certainly become the most efficient way for HIM to run. Finding your own fastest and most efficient stride is truely "aiming at a moving target". Trying to find the perfect combination of tradeoffs each day is very similar to a golfer finding their golf swing on the range each day - and, I'm finding, almost as complicated.
The question about credentials was obviously intended to trick you. There are, of course, no credentials that can make one an expert on individual running mechanics. There cannot be because there is no such thing as a universal perfect running form. Anyone who tells you different is uninformed. Running form is unique to the individual and not necessarily transferable to someone else.
Paula Radcliffe is the obvious example. Is her form - above the waist, if you will - really so horrible? I think not. Changing her form to what some consider "good form" might cause her to be a less economical and less effective athlete. Obviously she is well coached. Ask yourself why her coach hasn't changed her form.
Dr. E wrote:
Running form is unique to the individual and not necessarily transferable to someone else.
Thanks for this post, Dr. E. Stay tuned for the next thread, "Good running mechanics: Shayne Culpepper" to show that there are other ways to run fast and efficiently.
IMO, there is always a combination of motions which maximize a runner's speed and effiency AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT AND/OR PACE.
I hope we can discuss certain ideas about running mechanics that are universally applicable to everyone, as well as the unique tradeoffs we all must adjust to find our own best motion.
Everyone who wants to run faster knows they must put time into training. But perhaps we should also have a "target stride" to work toward. If we work on specific strengths and flexibilities we might get to that target.
PhysMech wrote:
I hope we can discuss certain ideas about running mechanics that are universally applicable to everyone...
I'm not sure such things exist. What are you suggesting?
Bojacques Bojique wrote:
I'm not sure such things exist. What are you suggesting?
Example: Keeping knees and feet moving directly back and forth and limiting or eliminating any side-to-side movement components of the leg motion allows the legs and feet to move from step to step in the least distance. Doing this also reduces the need for "redirection" energy, increasing efficiency. Aside from the possible exception of a sprinter's first few steps out of the blocks, wouldn't all runners benefit from trying to maximize their "planar efficiency"?
Are you suggesting that you would somehow change the mechanics of a runner whose lower leg swings medially (not an uncommon trait)? If so, exactly how would you attempt such a radical transformation? I'm very curious.
Bojacques Bojique wrote:
Are you suggesting that you would somehow change the mechanics of a runner whose lower leg swings medially (not an uncommon trait)? If so, exactly how would you attempt such a radical transformation? I'm very curious.
No coach in their right mind would ever suggest such a thing. I'm sure he meant something else.
Bojacques Bojique wrote:
Are you suggesting that you would somehow change the mechanics of a runner whose lower leg swings medially (not an uncommon trait)? If so, exactly how would you attempt such a radical transformation? I'm very curious.
Personal example. My legs are a bit bowed - about a 2 inch gap between the knees with feet together and knees locked. Ran that way too - knees slightly apart and "paw prints in the snow" overlapped the centerline a bit. A bit of excessive toeout, especially in the right foot.
Go to gym. Run on treadmill, facing mirror. Many sessions later and things were lining up nicely. Literally worked on one piece at a time - right knee one day, maybe left foot toeout another, etc. If a motion produced a strange feeling or any kind of discomfort, I would only try and change the motion for a short time, then return to the old way for that session. Realized some muscle imbalances along the way, and worked to strengthen the weak side. Ended up having to try and lengthen my left leg stride and shorten my right leg stride (listened to the rhythm of the footstrike till it sounded like a metronome). It was truely suprising to me how much energy some of the small changes saved.
A better stride for me was there waiting to be found, and since the change was done in small increments over a long time, I consider it gradual improvement rather than a radical change.
PhysMech wrote:
Personal example. My legs are a bit bowed - about a 2 inch gap between the knees with feet together and knees locked. Ran that way too - knees slightly apart and "paw prints in the snow" overlapped the centerline a bit. A bit of excessive toeout, especially in the right foot.
Go to gym. Run on treadmill, facing mirror. Many sessions later and things were lining up nicely. Literally worked on one piece at a time - right knee one day, maybe left foot toeout another, etc. If a motion produced a strange feeling or any kind of discomfort, I would only try and change the motion for a short time, then return to the old way for that session. Realized some muscle imbalances along the way, and worked to strengthen the weak side. Ended up having to try and lengthen my left leg stride and shorten my right leg stride (listened to the rhythm of the footstrike till it sounded like a metronome). It was truely suprising to me how much energy some of the small changes saved.
A better stride for me was there waiting to be found, and since the change was done in small increments over a long time, I consider it gradual improvement rather than a radical change.
I'm guessing that you are kidding yourself. Such "corrections" are more likely to be harmful than beneficial. Most likely, you are actually less efficient now than before. The treadmill is the devil, at least in terms of attempetive correctiveness.
Coack K wrote:
I'm guessing that you are kidding yourself. Such "corrections" are more likely to be harmful than beneficial. Most likely, you are actually less efficient now than before. The treadmill is the devil, at least in terms of attempetive correctiveness.
"I'm guessing"
"are more likely"
"Most likely"
"is the devil"
Is there any logic to your arguments and are they backed up by anything?
PhysMech wrote:
Is there any logic to your arguments and are they backed up by anything?
Experience....lots of experience. There's no substitute for it.
Ok folks, before this thread can go on any further I'm going to have to see some credentials.
See my post on 7/16/2007 1:35pm
PhysMech wrote:
See my post on 7/16/2007 1:35pm
Not your running PRs, your biomechanics credentials.
I'm a runner with science and engineering background, just sharing some insights. I'm not applying for a job, showing off, or trying to show anyone up. I am also involved with golf instruction and believe runners can benefit from thinking about their running mechanics in the same way a golfer works on the mechanics of their golf swing.
Respectable, very respectable. But you could easily be making all that up. Is there any way you can give me proof of this experience. Then maybe I'll be more open minded.