J.O. wrote:
rekrunner, why would we need 'scientific evidence' to see if something is going to work or not? ...
Ummmmmm...seeing if something works IS scientific evidence.
As a troll I must admit your brilliance. Absolutely hilarious.
As a non-troll...Wow! I can only feel sorry for you.
Aaaaggghh!! I was talking to "Another way 2 look at it". He hit you with the "scientific evidence" stick, so I simply hit him back with his own stick a few times, and now I'm just waiting to see his "non-answers".I have no reasons to doubt about stride lengths as times get faster.But I prefer to look at the issue like I said, as working on improving my form and technique, leading to improved economy, faster times, and coincidentally better strides.
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?
someone else wrote:
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.
**********************************************
Hmm. You like to argue about things you don't understand don't you?
This is NOT a new idea, and I as well as many others have used it successfully for many years.
just another guy wrote:
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.
Your reading comprehension needs some work.
What the heck wrote:
J.O. wrote:rekrunner, why would we need 'scientific evidence' to see if something is going to work or not? ...
Ummmmmm...seeing if something works IS scientific evidence.
As a troll I must admit your brilliance. Absolutely hilarious.
As a non-troll...Wow! I can only feel sorry for you.
*********************************
I just call it racing faster. You can call it science if you like.
rekrunner wrote:
Aaaaggghh!! I was talking to "Another way 2 look at it". He hit you with the "scientific evidence" stick, so I simply hit him back with his own stick a few times, and now I'm just waiting to see his "non-answers".
I have no reasons to doubt about stride lengths as times get faster.
But I prefer to look at the issue like I said, as working on improving my form and technique, leading to improved economy, faster times, and coincidentally better strides.
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?
Ok, no problem. But the way I see it, you and most other runners are missing out on the specific work you need to get that extra power.
J.O. wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Aaaaggghh!! I was talking to "Another way 2 look at it". He hit you with the "scientific evidence" stick, so I simply hit him back with his own stick a few times, and now I'm just waiting to see his "non-answers".
I have no reasons to doubt about stride lengths as times get faster.
But I prefer to look at the issue like I said, as working on improving my form and technique, leading to improved economy, faster times, and coincidentally better strides.
Ok, no problem. But the way I see it, you and most other runners are missing out on the specific work you need to get that extra power.
Ok question: How long is the optimal stride? How long can strides get before they become too long to be efficient?
It's obvious that they can't get longer forever, just like it's obvious that stride rate can't get faster forever. You can only move your legs so fast because humans have limits. To deny this is to say that humans are somehow not bound by the natural laws of the universe. How do you know they aren't as long and fast as they can be right now?
J.O. wrote:
just another guy wrote: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.
Your reading comprehension needs some work.
I disagree, my reading comprehension is completely on the mark. Your initial statement was that records will get faster with or without drugs. This is an overwhelming statement of the obvious. Records will NEVER get slower (a slower time will not necessitate a change in the record). So stating that records will get faster is a statement of the most basic fact and is not worthy of a seperate post, you buffoon. Try to use your silly little excuse for a brain to post some more thoughful topics.
You, my friend, are an ass.
just another guy wrote:
J.O. wrote:Your reading comprehension needs some work.
I disagree, my reading comprehension is completely on the mark. Your initial statement was that records will get faster with or without drugs. This is an overwhelming statement of the obvious. Records will NEVER get slower (a slower time will not necessitate a change in the record). So stating that records will get faster is a statement of the most basic fact and is not worthy of a seperate post, you buffoon. Try to use your silly little excuse for a brain to post some more thoughful topics.
You, my friend, are an ass.
Actually, the records could stay the same, so it's not completely obvious. He obviously thinks they will get faster. I agree, but I don't think they will get much faster. His ideas of stride length determining future world records is ludicrous.
It's not ludicrous you idiot, it's basic biomechanics.
This thread is getting almost as good as "Doug and Dinsdale", circa mid seventies.
I don't know what you mean, but one thing I do know for sure, the amount of misinformation on the basics of running here and in magazines and in coaching in general is rather pitiful.
Do you care to answer my question?
someone else wrote:
Ok question: How long is the optimal stride? How long can strides get before they become too long to be efficient?
It's obvious that they can't get longer forever, just like it's obvious that stride rate can't get faster forever. You can only move your legs so fast because humans have limits. To deny this is to say that humans are somehow not bound by the natural laws of the universe. How do you know they aren't as long and fast as they can be right now?
The point of doing the bounding work is to allow a longer stride to become more efficient. This takes a lot of work. Bounding is slightly inneficient, of course, but you don't race like that.
The human limits of stride length and rate are probably hundreds of years in the future. Can I remind you that this sport is very young?
Imagine back in the 1950's when the men's marathon record was slower than Paula Radcliffe's 2.15.25, people like you would have been saying that no woman will ever break 2.40?
The very idea of sub 2.30 would have been ludicrous.
This is the typical ignorance and insecurity of runners, thinking that the current World Records are close to the human limits. Paavo Nurmi thought that the human limit for the mile was 4.04
I'm glad that not all the best runners think like this. Sir Roger Bannister was asked on the 50th aniversary of his sub 4, what he thought the record would go down to, and he thought 3.30 was possible. Good for him I say.
A stride length of 2 meters in the Marathon combined with a high stride rate is a perfectly reasonable expectation, but the pace that would generate, is something that seems incredible.
Why is this thread still going on?
Jon, there's nothing of value in what you're saying. It's like saying "flying is easy, you just have to become airborne...it's obvious!".
In his book, Matt Fitzgerald talks about Power Training, and gives six different jumping drills designed to mimic specific components of the running stride, as part of his supplemental cross-training.He also references a recent Australian study which showed that six weeks of power training resulted in a 2.7% improvement in 3K race times, compared to those who didn't power train. Power training seems to result in improved running economy, specifically by increasing the leg stiffness. Runners are able to improve muscle pre-activation, resulting in shorter ground contact times, and longer floating.I just see your "specific work ... to get that extra power" as working to improve form and running economy. That doesn't mean I'm missing the work.
J.O. wrote:
Ok, no problem. But the way I see it, you and most other runners are missing out on the specific work you need to get that extra power.
I have a theory too wrote:
Why is this thread still going on?
Jon, there's nothing of value in what you're saying. It's like saying "flying is easy, you just have to become airborne...it's obvious!".
Because I have a very valid point, that World Records will be much faster than they are now, regardless of so called 'performance enhancing drugs' for the simple reason that we can all greatly improve our power output with the right training.
To fools like you who aren't interested, I have to ask, why bother asking me stupid questions, if you don't really want an answer?
rekrunner wrote:
I just see your "specific work ... to get that extra power" as working to improve form and running economy. That doesn't mean I'm missing the work.
So which Master's record/records are you close to breaking rekrunner?
J.O. wrote:
Because I have a very valid point, that World Records will be much faster than they are now, regardless of so called 'performance enhancing drugs' for the simple reason that we can all greatly improve our power output with the right training.
To fools like you who aren't interested, I have to ask, why bother asking me stupid questions, if you don't really want an answer?
Is that what your point is supposed to be? It seems to me you keep changing your 'point' every other post.
Like I said before, you need some work on your reading comprehension.