This thread is a good example of how a ridiculous post can elicit hundreds of responses.
My personal favorite was the "how much could a gorilla bench?" thread.
What happened to it?
This thread is a good example of how a ridiculous post can elicit hundreds of responses.
My personal favorite was the "how much could a gorilla bench?" thread.
What happened to it?
Another way 2 look at it wrote:
J.O. wrote:Strides will get longer. This does not require pharmacology.
I think this opinion is too obvious to be controversial, so why do so few people express it?
What scientific evidence do you have that people are running with shorter than optimal strides?
Thanks in advance for your non-answer.
***************************************
My 'scientific evidence' is to measure stride length and stride rate. Remeber pace = stride rate x stride length.
Have you observed the power of a really fast runner up close?
J.O. wrote:
someone else wrote:You can't just leap through the air indefinitely. Eventually, you'll need to apply more force to the ground to keep yourself from slowing down too much. Over the course of a race, it gets harder to maintain that same amount of force, so your momentum slows, your muscles get tired, and you can't "bound" anymore. There has to be an efficient middle ground.
*************************************************
Yes, but we just have to apply a good pacing strategy as always. Your stride may gradually get slightly shorter, but then when you are near the finish, you will recruit some of those those unused fast twitch fibers and lengthen and quicken your stride again.
And this is new how? This is pretty much how every race ever has been run. Like I said, you can't just fly through the air for several meters without touching the ground and expect it to be efficient. You have to apply more force, and eventually, you will lose momentum and get tired. Never have I been in the latter stages of a race and PR'd just by "focusing on lengthening my stride". This idea you have is no different than what has been going on for a long, long time.
J.O. wrote:
Another way 2 look at it wrote:What scientific evidence do you have that people are running with shorter than optimal strides?
Thanks in advance for your non-answer.
***************************************
My 'scientific evidence' is to measure stride length and stride rate. Remeber pace = stride rate x stride length.
Have you observed the power of a really fast runner up close?
That wasn't his question. His question was how do you know these measurements you are taking are less than optimal? It's all based on your imagination of what a stride should be.
rekrunner wrote:
Thanks for that -- as you know, loonies can write short posts too. I often write long posts, and read many, in spite of knowing better. Of course it's not the length of the posts that make them great, but the richness and density of content. Some long posts are sparse in that respect. I think the best posts are short, yet informative, but that takes even longer to write.
On the other hand, I am often surprised and amazed at the density of lunacy that can be condensed into so few sentences.
Regarding my knee, I thought it was a case of runner's knee (and it still may be), and was treating it myself with rest, stretching and strengthening exercises (I read about it in "Brain Training"). However, after 5 weeks of not really completely going away, I went to a sports specialist who ruled out a lot of stuff, but wants to see an MRI to rule out a torn meniscus. I'm an American, but live in a country with comprehensive national health care, so wasting my money is not a big issue. My wife keeps pushing me to go see a bone-cracker for a general tune-up. And I've been considering physio-therapy, or some kind of deep-tissue massage, to help regain some mobility and flexibility in some aching joints (e.g. volleyball shoulder). So no need to worry about me -- there are no quacks in these fields.
See how long these posts can get -- and I wasn't really even trying?
That wasn't too long, because it was informative and readable, and sane.
Beware the bone crackers. If your muscles are tight, they will inevitably pull your joints out of optimal alignment, and no amount of bone cracking will address the underlying muscle tension.
I have this problem right now. The way I see it, I need to take it easy for a while and not worry about losing fitness.
Last week I went to do another of my 2 meter stride bounding on my secret 5% incline, and found to my surprise and delight that I could do it with a normal stride. 10 x 150m with a 2 meter stride up a 5% grade, aged 48 and 10 pounds above my racing weight.
So all that hard work through the winter is working, but it would be stupid to get injured.
Sprint Geezer wrote:
This thread is a good example of how a ridiculous post can elicit hundreds of responses.
My personal favorite was the "how much could a gorilla bench?" thread.
What happened to it?
You're just a jealous has been, obsessed with drugs.
rekrunner wrote:
He never said today's strides are "shorter than optimal". I think the correct way to interpret this idea is that with more effective training, optimal strides will get increasingly longer, as times get faster. I.e. if and when 10K times are approaching 20:00, the strides will be about 2.5 meters, rather than cadence approaching 250.
Don't try to use science as a weapon if you are untrained.
Another way 2 look at it wrote:What scientific evidence do you have that people are running with shorter than optimal strides?
Thanks in advance for your non-answer.
OK, that's funny. I give you that.
" I think the correct way to interpret this idea is that with more effective training, optimal strides will get increasingly longer". Another way to say it would be, "Today's stride length is too short for optimal performance..."
How stupid are you? Seriously.
And as far as science training - Well, let's see - I have a masters in mathematics and a PhD in experimental physics. Currently I am a tenured physics professor at a top 20 university. True, I am not Einstein but I kind of think that my background gives me sufficient "training" to recognize a quack when I see one. Nice try though.
someone else wrote:
And this is new how? This is pretty much how every race ever has been run. Like I said, you can't just fly through the air for several meters without touching the ground and expect it to be efficient. You have to apply more force, and eventually, you will lose momentum and get tired. Never have I been in the latter stages of a race and PR'd just by "focusing on lengthening my stride". This idea you have is no different than what has been going on for a long, long time.
I never said it was a new idea. Stop twisting things and trying to complicate the issue. Stop trying to fabricate a mystery, there is no mystery.
Another way 2 look at it wrote:
" I think the correct way to interpret this idea is that with more effective training, optimal strides will get increasingly longer". Another way to say it would be, "Today's stride length is too short for optimal performance..."
How stupid are you? Seriously.
And as far as science training - Well, let's see - I have a masters in mathematics and a PhD in experimental physics. Currently I am a tenured physics professor at a top 20 university. True, I am not Einstein but I kind of think that my background gives me sufficient "training" to recognize a quack when I see one. Nice try though.
Ah a real scientician?
Sorry dude, anybody with a significant interest in sprints and throws has an abiding interest in the contribution of drugs to the sport, unless they're below the age of 10.
Your statement about stride length has the distinction of being so ridiculous that it is one of the very few I've chosen to NOT respond to in any substantive way.
What is there to say? The statement is best left ignored, and treated as having been either merely inflammatory, or just unfortunate.
Life's too short. There are better things to do, like contribute to a thread on old naked guys in the locker room.
Your post was THAT bad.
J.O. wrote:
Last week I went to do another of my 2 meter stride bounding on my secret 5% incline, and found to my surprise and delight that I could do it with a normal stride. 10 x 150m with a 2 meter stride up a 5% grade, aged 48 and 10 pounds above my racing weight.
So all that hard work through the winter is working, but it would be stupid to get injured.
How much weight are you trying to gain?
Sprint Geezer wrote:
Sorry dude, anybody with a significant interest in sprints and throws has an abiding interest in the contribution of drugs to the sport, unless they're below the age of 10.
Your statement about stride length has the distinction of being so ridiculous that it is one of the very few I've chosen to NOT respond to in any substantive way.
What is there to say? The statement is best left ignored, and treated as having been either merely inflammatory, or just unfortunate.
Life's too short. There are better things to do, like contribute to a thread on old naked guys in the locker room.
Your post was THAT bad.
Yup, obsessed with drugs ye are Sprint Geezer. You are so much in denial of the fact that drugs are not necessary for a longer faster stride that you will seek to poison other peoples minds too.
scary training wrote:
J.O. wrote:Last week I went to do another of my 2 meter stride bounding on my secret 5% incline, and found to my surprise and delight that I could do it with a normal stride. 10 x 150m with a 2 meter stride up a 5% grade, aged 48 and 10 pounds above my racing weight.
So all that hard work through the winter is working, but it would be stupid to get injured.
How much weight are you trying to gain?
*************************************************************
I'm not gaining muscle mass. It hasn't happened. I'm still an endurance runner.
Hey J.O., is your hand down Ventolin's pants again?
I'm glad you found humor. I occasionally sneak in a bit of humor, to lighten things up a bit.How stupid am I? If you ask me, and you did, not very. Seriously. But you'd be surprised how often I ask myself that question, after posting in some of these threads.You talked about "optimal strides", not "optimal performances". You want to look at it another way, but I think you are looking at it the wrong way. What's awkward to me is how you are trying to attach the word "non-optimal" as a fault of today's strides, into *this* discussion, and then attempt to dismiss the whole idea due to lack of scientific evidence, as if the body of truth is completely described by what scientists have been able to observe in carefully controlled experiments.I think of "optimal" stride lengths as a measure of maximizing speed, while minimizing energy costs, over a desired distance and/or time. How you train changes what is "optimal" over time, as athletes get stronger, more coordinated, leaner, etc. Furthermore, each athlete is different, and tomorrow's athletes will also be different. Faster times in the future will be a result of more effective training, applied to different athletes. This doesn't suggest that today's athletes have somehow settled for a "non-optimal" stride.I could ask similiar questions. What scientific evidence does anyone have that:- today's stride is already optimal?- times will get faster due to increased stride rates?- times will not get faster?There is not enough "Scientific evidence" to fuel this discussion either way. At the moment, we are stuck with many competing "unproven" hypotheses:- times will get faster because stride lengths increased- and/or times will get faster because stride rates increased- times will not get fasterThe "scientific evidence" stick has its place and time.
Another way 2 look at it wrote:
OK, that's funny. I give you that.
" I think the correct way to interpret this idea is that with more effective training, optimal strides will get increasingly longer". Another way to say it would be, "Today's stride length is too short for optimal performance..."
How stupid are you? Seriously.
And as far as science training - Well, let's see - I have a masters in mathematics and a PhD in experimental physics. Currently I am a tenured physics professor at a top 20 university. True, I am not Einstein but I kind of think that my background gives me sufficient "training" to recognize a quack when I see one. Nice try though.
Sprint Geezer wrote:
Hey J.O., is your hand down Ventolin's pants again?
Huh? Wrong again Sprint Geezer,I'm no Ventolin fan.
rekrunner, why would we need 'scientific evidence' to see if something is going to work or not?
And also, why would you doubt that strides will get longer?
It's rather obvious to me that they will, why isn't it to you?
You are avoiding answering my question. I said everyone already tries to focus on pacing, but getting a longer stride will eventually become more inefficient, not more efficient. Pacing will not help if your stride is inefficient. If you run faster at the beginning, you will get tired and slow down more the faster you ran at the beginning. If you run slower, you will have to much ground to make up to run a good time. There has to be a middle ground, and that's what the stride is like. You can't have one too short or too long. It has to be just right.
J.O. wrote:
rekrunner, why would we need 'scientific evidence' to see if something is going to work or not?
And also, why would you doubt that strides will get longer?
It's rather obvious to me that they will, why isn't it to you?
You need scientific evidence to know if it will work because otherwise you are just going off of your own preconceived notions, and that is the most faulty way to go about it that I can imagine. You can't just develop this idea and then test everything by that idea. You have to have scientific evidence to know if your ideas about the human body and energy expenditure are correct.
I kind of doubt that strides will get longer because longer strides will eventually get less efficient. You can't fly 10m in the air and expect it to be just as energy efficient and maintainable as if you were going 2m. To me, this is obvious. Why is it not obvious to you?
On second thought, I really hate that I am responding to this because I know you are probably the most deluded person I have ever talked to, and I am just being dragged into your lunacy. I really feel sorry for you, but I don't think I can help if you are that entrenched in your view.
Tell me, if strides are going to help performance, then why isn't your secret training program not helping already? You should be making money off of this if it is true.
Of course world records will get faster. They don't update the record for a slower time you moron. The only way to have a new record is for the old one to be broken. The only way to break a record is to run a faster time. Therefore world records will get faster and faster.
Way to state the obvious.