higher turnover at slower paces = energy expended for muscle activation at a greater than optimal rate = less efficient (but possibly safer)Could you elaborate on this trade off you are referring too? Thx
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.
B&A, could you clarify if we've agreed to disagree of if we still disagree about whether we agree or not?Hawk,
Could clarify for me what we disagree on? Thx
Hawk,
Could clarify for me what we disagree on? Thx
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.
Hawk,
Statistically speaking overuse running injuries are much more frequent than world hunger and quite debilitating.
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 . . .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.
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.
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.
That sounds doable when dealing with youth that have a lot of athleticism. But when dealing with older runners that have bodies that have aged (some not so graciously), it would be hard to achieve.
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.What is it you think would be hard to achieve for an older runner?