Critique my form please

Hawk,

""" Either way, it's probably not a good use of your time to attempt to clarify further"""

If this doesn't mean you want to end the dialogue please clarify? As for what I spend my time doing let me worry about that. Thx.

As I said, I believe I understand you enough to recognize we disagree, so further back and forth is likely fruitless. We're not on the verge of solving world hunger here, so I'm not feeling too guilty about moving on to other things that haven't already been beaten to death.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickW and Bare Lee
higher turnover at slower paces = energy expended for muscle activation at a greater than optimal rate = less efficient (but possibly safer)
The trade-off is safety for efficiency.

Do you have some speed and cadence chart that says that this is true? Which data are you basing this off of? If you are just going by individual observation that isn't something that would be very convincing to me as I have had years of experience that show me that high frequency at low speeds can be very efficient.
 
Hawk,

Statistically speaking overuse running injuries are much more frequent than world hunger and quite debilitating. I for one take it quite seriously. Understandably we are going to disagree on some of the details.
 
Hawk,

Statistically speaking overuse running injuries are much more frequent than world hunger and quite debilitating.

Could you show me the stats that back that one up ? I think you're mistaken.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm

"Nearly one in four people, 1.3 billion - a majority of humanity - live on less than $1 per day, while the world's 358 billionaires have assets exceeding the combined annual incomes of countries with 45 percent of the world's people. UNICEF"

If you're comparing running boo-boos to the stunning rate of poverty and malnoutrition in the world today, I'm afraid we've just stumbled across another area we would share starkly different views.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bare Lee
Do you have some speed and cadence chart that says that this is true? Which data are you basing this off of? If you are just going by individual observation that isn't something that would be very convincing to me as I have had years of experience that show me that high frequency at low speeds can be very efficient.
I posted three articles somewhere I think on the Cadence Candor post. I've also looked into it in other places. It's out there if you care to look into it. I'm mad at myself for entering into this discussion again, but no, it's not based on my personal experience--I start with that, and then seek expert opinion and research to see if my intuitions have any basis in objective reality. Many physiologists, biomechanists agree that cadence and stride length covary according to pace. The 180 figure was adopted after observing elite runners running at elite paces. There is no reason to believe this should apply to slower paces, and many, perhaps most, elite runners do lower their cadence at slower paces. It's all in my postings somewhere . . .
Anyway, sorry for opening up this discussion without the will to see it through. Let's go back to giving each other sh!t. I know this is important to you, and I take it in good faith that you're up for an honest debate, I'm just not up for it. We just seem to go around in circles.
 
Could you show me the stats that back that one up ? I think you're mistaken.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm

"Nearly one in four people, 1.3 billion - a majority of humanity - live on less than $1 per day, while the world's 358 billionaires have assets exceeding the combined annual incomes of countries with 45 percent of the world's people. UNICEF"

If you're comparing running boo-boos to the stunning rate of poverty and malnoutrition in the world today, I'm afraid we've just stumbled across another area we would share starkly different views.[/quote

According to this link http://www.worldhunger.org/articles...2002.htm#Number_of_hungry_people_in_the_world , stats are at 13.6% world hunger. Not to diminish the devastation of hunger but it is less likely than running injuries. Just sayin....
 
I posted three articles somewhere I think on the Cadence Candor post. I've also looked into it in other places. It's out there if you care to look into it. I'm mad at myself for entering into this discussion again, but no, it's not based on my personal experience--I start with that, and then seek expert opinion and research to see if my intuitions have any basis in objective reality. Many physiologists, biomechanists agree that cadence and stride length covary according to pace. The 180 figure was adopted after observing elite runners running at elite paces. There is no reason to believe this should apply to slower paces, and many, perhaps most, elite runners do lower their cadence at slower paces. It's all in my postings somewhere . . .
Anyway, sorry for opening up this discussion without the will to see it through. Let's go back to giving each other sh!t. I know this is important to you, and I take it in good faith that you're up for an honest debate, I'm just not up for it. We just seem to go around in circles.

Fair enough. I will search for some data which demonstrates why I think 180 number is relevant for slower speeds just as it is for higher speeds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bare Lee
Wow. You're saying more than 1 in 7 people (not runners, people) are injured running each day ? Really ? These people are hungry all the time, not once a year dude.

I think this thread has been sufficiently pulled off target. Time to wrap it up.

It seems you would be better off going to the world hunger thread..lol.. As for most of you have said about running I am in pretty good agreement with. Some of the minutia I would change though.
 
So B&A, you saying that everybody, no matter of their body shape, weight, height, agility and and physical ability all have the same cadence? I am having problems buying into that. Having coached athletes in a couple of different sports at a national level, we realize that every person is uniquely different in their own way. We identify what is different in each and how we can utilize this to work for that person in that sport. We don't have a specific model that has to be just that to succeed in what ever sport that happens to be. We have a starting point to work with (cadence), that on average we would like to see at at 180, but is that right for everybody? It would be if everyone was at the same ability, size, height, weight, and agility. And lord help those who have had life altering injuries like fractures of joints, osteo arthritis, illnesses, etc. So keeping that in mind I agree with you that it is some thing that we like to see people get started with, but I do not think it is gospel. That is my rant of the day fueled by a beer or 2 on the golf course today, walking barefoot at a cadence of 60 and heel striking. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bare Lee and NickW
Dutchie53,

"""So B&A, you saying that everybody, no matter of their body shape, weight, height, agility and and physical ability all have the same cadence?"""

No, that is not what I am saying. I believe cadence can and should fluctuate between 180-290 depending on speed, technique and genetics. In general cadence can and should remain relatively constant when speed is constant. Within 5spm, only when going at sprint speeds should cadence dramatically increase and that is do to range of motion being maxed out.
 
What is it you think would be hard to achieve for an older runner?
The joints are stiffer, muscles are a little tighter and have gotten a little shorter (at least it seems so as I stretch the few times that I do :) ) as we age. The higher cadences would be way harder to achieve for us old people. And yes I am on of those older runners who also has had injuries to my legs. Torn acl's in both knees (hockey), bilateral broken heels and ankles (fall while climbing), and a broken leg (motorcycle). Most of us older folks, and some younger ones, have had injuries that makes what you talk about impossible to achieve. And for those who will try will get injured. I will agree that my form improved once I got it o +180, but it was a long journey getting there. Just like form, most every runner (min or the few barefoot runners) that I see in town all seem to use a hybrid form of chi and pose, and it seems to work for them. All I am saying as have a lot of others here that cadence and form have to evolve for every runner in their own way. I am not here to argue and debate this point as everyone here seems to have some good input in this discussion. I think you do a great job in providing guidance to those of us who have had questions. I just do not see it as black and white as it seems you do.
 

Support Your Club

Forum statistics

Threads
19,094
Messages
183,434
Members
8,688
Latest member
Jojo9090