at 47+ wrote:
at 47 wrote:He's landing on his forefoot though, so no.
Incorrect. The leg is the physics vector that matters.
Your position is people with large feet land farther in front of their center of gravity. Yeah, right.
The foot is the extremity that contacts. That's all that matters. And yes people with large feet contact the ground farther in front, all else being equal.
Sage, I have great respect for you as a runner and a youtuber but your argument is crap.
First, how is stride rate a logical tip for anyone? Are we supposed to always be conscious of how many times our feet hit the ground? Do you really think that stride rate is determined by the mind and not our brains? The stride rate depends upon our velocity but the more significantly is the WAY in which we strike.
The "strike" sets up the rest of the body. If you heel strike, your arms are often carried across your body. Stride rate slows down and posture slouches forward. If your run "properly" or "naturally" (yes people there is one way to run) then your will run on your mid foot, basically underneath the ball of the foot. This will set up the rest of your body. You will be tall without having to "try" and be tall. Your momentum will all be forward without having to "try" to lean. And the 180 spm will take care of itself. All the tips that coaches think of as effective are ultimately sub conscious things that take care of themselves when the main part of the gait is taken care of-- the proper landing.
I can't stress enough how ignorant and stupid tips like "reduce ground contact time" and "improve stride rate" are. You have to give runner tangible terms that allow them to understand what they really need to be doing. You said it yourself that you don't want people to "overthink it". And I completely agree with you. People break the body down and give tips for each section when we should never be consciously thinking about specific parts of our bodies, we need to work as a whole. And the only way to do this is to run on your mid foot(balls of your feet basically), let your natural rhythm take over, and don't overthink it.
form guy wrote:
Sage, I have great respect for you as a runner and a youtuber but your argument is crap.
First, how is stride rate a logical tip for anyone? Are we supposed to always be conscious of how many times our feet hit the ground? Do you really think that stride rate is determined by the mind and not our brains? The stride rate depends upon our velocity but the more significantly is the WAY in which we strike.
The "strike" sets up the rest of the body. If you heel strike, your arms are often carried across your body. Stride rate slows down and posture slouches forward. If your run "properly" or "naturally" (yes people there is one way to run) then your will run on your mid foot, basically underneath the ball of the foot. This will set up the rest of your body. You will be tall without having to "try" and be tall. Your momentum will all be forward without having to "try" to lean. And the 180 spm will take care of itself. All the tips that coaches think of as effective are ultimately sub conscious things that take care of themselves when the main part of the gait is taken care of-- the proper landing.
I can't stress enough how ignorant and stupid tips like "reduce ground contact time" and "improve stride rate" are. You have to give runner tangible terms that allow them to understand what they really need to be doing. You said it yourself that you don't want people to "overthink it". And I completely agree with you. People break the body down and give tips for each section when we should never be consciously thinking about specific parts of our bodies, we need to work as a whole. And the only way to do this is to run on your mid foot(balls of your feet basically), let your natural rhythm take over, and don't overthink it.
How can it be natural if they need you to tell them how to do it?
form guy wrote:
The "strike" sets up the rest of the body. If you heel strike, your arms are often carried across your body. Stride rate slows down and posture slouches forward. If your run "properly" or "naturally" (yes people there is one way to run) then your will run on your mid foot, basically underneath the ball of the foot. This will set up the rest of your body. You will be tall without having to "try" and be tall. Your momentum will all be forward without having to "try" to lean. And the 180 spm will take care of itself. All the tips that coaches think of as effective are ultimately sub conscious things that take care of themselves when the main part of the gait is taken care of-- the proper landing.
And the only way to do this is to run on your mid foot(balls of your feet basically), let your natural rhythm take over, and don't overthink it.
oh no,not you again.
The mid-foot/"ball" of your foot strike/landing as the ONE WAY to run correctly is simply dumb. Malmo and others have compiled a LOOOOOOONG list of world class runners that did not land on the balls of their feet. No, many were/are certainly heel strikers. Meb and Abdi, two africans who probably grew up with lots of bare foot walking and running, are classic heel-strike shufflers. They have had amazingly long and successful careers. Why don't you go tell them that they are running incorrectly???
furthermore, the argument that it mid-foot striking is more "natural" is bunk too, because they fairly recently studied a primitive tribe (untainted by western influence) in Africa that walks and runs barefoot. Guess what? When they had them run, many were heel strikers. So much for the "natural" argument and the argument that shoes make people heel strike unnaturally.
Okay, I'm trying to wrap my head around what you just wrote: So the "mind" is a separate entity from "the brain,"? -AND "reduce ground contact time" and "increase stride rate to over 180 steps per minute" aren't tangible terms, but "run on your mid-foot" and "let your natural rhythm take over" are?!SHM.Serious question though: Do you run in Newtons then?You realize people can over-stride while still forcing a mid-foot strike though? It's nasty, inefficient, and causes injures. Okay i'm done here now. Done!
form guy wrote:
Sage, I have great respect for you as a runner and a youtuber but your argument is crap.
First, how is stride rate a logical tip for anyone? Are we supposed to always be conscious of how many times our feet hit the ground? Do you really think that stride rate is determined by the mind and not our brains? The stride rate depends upon our velocity but the more significantly is the WAY in which we strike.
The "strike" sets up the rest of the body. If you heel strike, your arms are often carried across your body. Stride rate slows down and posture slouches forward. If your run "properly" or "naturally" (yes people there is one way to run) then your will run on your mid foot, basically underneath the ball of the foot. This will set up the rest of your body. You will be tall without having to "try" and be tall. Your momentum will all be forward without having to "try" to lean. And the 180 spm will take care of itself. All the tips that coaches think of as effective are ultimately sub conscious things that take care of themselves when the main part of the gait is taken care of-- the proper landing.
I can't stress enough how ignorant and stupid tips like "reduce ground contact time" and "improve stride rate" are. You have to give runner tangible terms that allow them to understand what they really need to be doing. You said it yourself that you don't want people to "overthink it". And I completely agree with you. People break the body down and give tips for each section when we should never be consciously thinking about specific parts of our bodies, we need to work as a whole. And the only way to do this is to run on your mid foot(balls of your feet basically), let your natural rhythm take over, and don't overthink it.
lower cadence wrote:
Less strides in total though. Works out about the same.
No, the effect is non-linear, not the same
self coach wrote:
lower cadence wrote:Less strides in total though. Works out about the same.
No, the effect is non-linear, not the same
Prove it.
lower cadence wrote:
self coach wrote:No, the effect is non-linear, not the same
Prove it.
Take an imaginary experiment with Mike Tyson and a 2-year old child. Let's say Tyson packs a punch of 1000 psi and the 2-year old packs a punch of 1 psi.
1000 punches from the 2-year old does not do the same damage as 1 punch from Tyson. If it were linear, the results would have been the same.
Fewer strides with bigger impact does more damage than more strides with lower impact.
It is awful, disgusting and a disgrace
self coach wrote:
lower cadence wrote:Prove it.
Take an imaginary experiment with Mike Tyson and a 2-year old child. Let's say Tyson packs a punch of 1000 psi and the 2-year old packs a punch of 1 psi.
1000 punches from the 2-year old does not do the same damage as 1 punch from Tyson. If it were linear, the results would have been the same.
Fewer strides with bigger impact does more damage than more strides with lower impact.
No. That's not linear either. The person taking longer strides could float like Bill Rodgers and the guy taking short strides could be stamping like Leonid Moiseyev.
Entirely individual really.
Besides your Tyson /child argument is just wild guessing.