Biomechanics question re. air time vs. ground time

easy. take your cadence in steps per second, multiply that by your ground contact time. if .50, you're grounded longer.

so anybody's probably striking the ground for less than a fifth of a second. at just under 0.17s of contact time, you're at 50% grounded 50% in the air. it's pretty easy (and more efficient) to spend more time in the air.

nopar king wrote:

it's pretty easy (and more efficient) to spend more time in the air.

Not to mention slower.

When I train to run, I run a long period of slow running. Then I add "speed work." You can analyze this and that and try to optimize training, but if you run any differently then what feels "right" you are probably hurting yourself. If you want to improve "bio mechanics" I would let your body improve its own mechanics in its own time.

If you look at a better runner and think that only his biomechanics are the reason he is faster, it's like analyzing tree in a forest with millions of trees.

Lets first look at the forest. He probably has a better strength to weight ratio. His lungs probably take in more oxygen. His heart probably pumps more blood per pump. He probably has a low body fat percentage. And yeah, his "biomechanics" are also probably better.

I like this website because it has made me a better runner. But, sometimes I think people spend a lot of time analyzing 1 aspect that might only bring mildly significant improvements.

My theory on biomechanics is, your locomotion improves through training, without actively thinking about it. When I spend a long time off from running and then start again, you can hear my running shoes "slapping" the pavement. My shins will hurt. My ankles will hurt. After a full summer of running you can barely hear my foot steps. My shins wont hurt as bad. Also when using a heart rate monitor, I will be able to run for a longer time at a faster pace with a lower heart rate then I could at the begining of the summer. For instance, 1 year my 70% of max HR went from 9:30 per mile down to 6:45 per mile after 1 year of training. My biomechanics also improved significantly. I didn't go out of my way to improve my mechanics, it was just a by-product of training.

No, I never became elite. And it surely wasn't only because of my biomechanics. It was because my heart didn't pump enough per pump. My lungs didn't take enough air per breath. I didn't have the raw speed to run a mile at the pace elite runners run for the 5K. etc etc

I guess what I'm getting at, is it's fine to analyze biomechanics, and try to improve, but if you try to copy another runners "biomechanics" and your body doesn't feel natural, you'll probably end up hurting yourself. Not only that, your body will get more effecient at running by just running so why even worry about it

I think unless you are in the top .00001 percent of runners, you will get the most enjoyment from running just by training and trying to improve your own times without over-training. The most reward competition is the one between you and yourself, especially if you can do it without hurting yourself.

Now, if you're a student or a scholar, or just interested in sports physiolgy and want to better understand the way the body works, and/or how to prevent and treat injury, that's a whole different topic.

Nice post, thanks.

Go to a site called Bearpowered.com You will find all you need to know about this and more from the controversially mimimalist Barry Ross. It's all about increasing mass-specific force, which is secondary to raw strength. This minimises ground-contact time. All else is waffle, including air time