Don't shorten your stride!
- Thread starter Barefoot Gentile
- Start date
Maybe "butt tucking" is a better way of explaining what I'm doing. Butt-tucking does not require any leaning, yet propels you forward since it shifts your center of gravity forward.
ok, jen, biting my fingers here and I want to add that, if you have the body awareness to do this effectively, then you're doing great. It sounds like you're describing the Taiji practice of tipping the basin to the rear (the basin being the pelvis ...).
Yeah, but now that I'm thinking about it, if my pelvis is tipping to the rear then that doesn't make sense, does it? Maybe I am doing reverse-butt tucking...lol. Gut protrusion? Lol.
no, it does make sense (to me), exactly the way you described it - the basin uis being tipped to the rear. Tucking the butt means raising the pelvic bone (you can incorporate the abdominal muscles to do this), which then elongates the sacrum a little and kind of points the tailbone toward the front. This would be the opposite of a sway back (which is the risk anyone trying to do this w/o competent help would be taking; it's very easy to get it 180° backwards and not realize it). The gut should end up being kind of sucked in, not stuck out... does that sound like what you're doing?
There's an exaggerated version here:
You're kind of assuming the position where his gut is pulled in and his lumbar spine is elongated, right? The "thrust" phase of the pelvis trust lol
There's an exaggerated version here:
You're kind of assuming the position where his gut is pulled in and his lumbar spine is elongated, right? The "thrust" phase of the pelvis trust lol
I kinda had a feeling that'd be the case, and re-worded my post a few time to avoid sounding like a Schlaumeister. The sway-back is easy to do; the other direction, not so much. The thing is, a sway back can result in more of a very vertical upper body or even a lean toward the rear. Makes sense, doesn't it? Any videos of you running out there?
Btw - those gymnastic ball exercises are excellent. Happy to have found that video
I only have one video, on pavement, slowly, before warming up, nothing like how I look when I am running "naturally". It took me a long time for my muscles to become strong enough to arch my back without overextending it. Those ball exercises always aggravate my back because I have athritis starting up in my low back. It loves trail running however!
Right, humans have only two gaits--walking and running--while horses and other quadrupeds have three--walking, trotting, and galloping. If you walk really fast, you can feel the transition happen automatically. The human running gait is like the quadruped trotting gait, involving "synchronized movements of diagonally opposite appendages" (Bramble & Lieberman -- NATURE |VOL 432 | 18 NOVEMBER 2004).
P.S., here's a nice blog post by Pete Larson on the topic of form and elite vs. recreational runners:
http://www.runblogger.com/2010/09/running-form-origin-of-minimalism-and.html
He makes the distinction between folk and scientific description, and argues that the former may oftentimes be more useful in getting us to run with better from (just as we think about the sun 'rising' and 'setting' when time-reckoning), which has been a theme and point of debate in this thread. So yes, go with whatever imagery, model, or cue gets you running well and injury-free, just don't make claims about what is actually going on from a scientific point of view, especially if these claims contravene well-established principles of science. After all, you hardly need to understand physics/calculus to hit a baseball well, just some good coaching and self-awareness--the central nervous system will do the rest.
Here's another bit on gravity and running:
http://peakperformance.runnersworld...ently-by-letting-gravity-do-some-of-the-work/
OK, here's the seeming counterargument to the original post: http://peakperformance.runnersworld...-that-shorter-strides-can-have-many-benefits/
Note, however, that since barefoot runners naturally have shorter strides, this article may in fact be a confirmation of BG and Lawrence's argument not to shorten your stride; that is, not to worry about it if you're already running barefoot.
Note, however, that since barefoot runners naturally have shorter strides, this article may in fact be a confirmation of BG and Lawrence's argument not to shorten your stride; that is, not to worry about it if you're already running barefoot.
Just curiois do you agree completely with the article? If not what do you disagree with?
Hey B&A.
Yes in both cases, but you're referring to the second article, right? If you disagree, I suggest you write Michael Tammaro, Steve Magness, and/or Irene Davis. I would be very interested in hearing/reading how that exchange goes.
Yes I am refering to the second article. I am concerned with what you think.......not the ones that wrote the article.
I think the ones who wrote or contributed to the article are correct. It's hardly my place to question, overturn, or verify Newtonian physics.
Barelee,
"""""All three said that gravity can do nothing to improve your running efficiency on a flat surface.""""
I disagree with this comment. Gravity acts the same way on all inclinations and it can also be reflected as a horizontal force thru rotational force/ gravitational torque. This is very significant in regards to the teaching of optimal/proper running technique. As when we fight gravity the least our running benefits the most. When one allows gravity to be the hierarchical king of forces involved in the move ment of our bodies only then can we expect to use the very least amount of effort to go a given speed. Any and all other alternatives would be more muscular intensive way of training to run and performing running.
"""""All three said that gravity can do nothing to improve your running efficiency on a flat surface.""""
I disagree with this comment. Gravity acts the same way on all inclinations and it can also be reflected as a horizontal force thru rotational force/ gravitational torque. This is very significant in regards to the teaching of optimal/proper running technique. As when we fight gravity the least our running benefits the most. When one allows gravity to be the hierarchical king of forces involved in the move ment of our bodies only then can we expect to use the very least amount of effort to go a given speed. Any and all other alternatives would be more muscular intensive way of training to run and performing running.
NickW
Guest
B&A, I'm trying to make sure I understand you correctly. I have a way of running uphills that I myself find very easy. A lot of people say to lean more into the hills as you're going up. I say screw that as that makes it much more difficult for me. I actually stay at the same body posture as on flats and basically avoid the whole gravity fighting my body thing and different than when running flats. Not sure if I made that clear or not, but is this what you're saying?
Nick,
Regardless of inclination gravity acts upon us and thus we respond by engaging our muscles for support/balance at each step. Our objective should be the same, use minimal muscles to support and release our support along with recovering our leg /foot to and with our body to enable a smooth transition at the next point of landing...repeat.......repeat....
I personally attempt to move my body the exact same way regardless of the incline or decline. At constant speed I always feel very vertical at acceleration and deceleration I feel more leaning sensations. The lean is something that is there but not something I would say I try to force but rather allow my body to move/pivot over and past my feet at my desired speed.
Regardless of inclination gravity acts upon us and thus we respond by engaging our muscles for support/balance at each step. Our objective should be the same, use minimal muscles to support and release our support along with recovering our leg /foot to and with our body to enable a smooth transition at the next point of landing...repeat.......repeat....
I personally attempt to move my body the exact same way regardless of the incline or decline. At constant speed I always feel very vertical at acceleration and deceleration I feel more leaning sensations. The lean is something that is there but not something I would say I try to force but rather allow my body to move/pivot over and past my feet at my desired speed.
NickW
Guest
I must not have explained myself very well B&A. Let me try again. When you lean farther forward you do actually increase more gravity stresses on your body. Think of holding a 25 lb weight close to your body, now straighten out your arms and that weight now seems much heavier and increases the stresses on your body. Same principle with body lean. The farther you get out from center of gravity, the more stresses you incur to your body. Hope I explained myself well enough this time.
Nickw,
Indeed I understand what you are saying. And no I don't try to lean as you are describing in the above post.
Indeed I understand what you are saying. And no I don't try to lean as you are describing in the above post.
Based on my lay understanding of physics / biomechanics, that is correct, and the Pose model doesn't make sense to me. The reason I don't offer my own critique of Pose is because others much more qualified than I am already have. I'm just a simple country linguistic anthropologist. No need to rehearse these arguments here.
I don't doubt that you get good results coaching with the Pose method (you certainly are passionate about your metier!). What I would suggest is that you are using a 'folk' model that offers valuable cues to achieving good form for your clients/students. As we know, folk models can work quite well on a practical level. Even Newtonian physics has become something of a folk model insofar as quantum mechanics offers a truer model of reality. Nonetheless, Newtonian physics is still perfectly adequate for building bridges. It's just that it fails in explaining adequately 'what's really going on' on a deeper level. Likewise, looking at the position of the sun still works for fairly accurate time-reckoning, but we know for a fact that the earth is the one changing its position throughout the day, not the sun.
My evolving understanding of running/biomechanics is that 'good form' exists, yes, but there's a certain amount of variation within that, and that different coaches use different cues with different students to achieve that form. The danger is in confusing these cues or models with 'what's really going on,' confusing practical results for theoretical understanding.
For example, experimental results show that the return phase of the gait cycle is mainly reflexive. That means there's little need to pull our legs or drive our knees. Yet the 'leg pull' or 'knee drive' cue or image may lead to better form with some students, as they may cause other things to happen, like a faster cadence or better placement of foot landing, that are beneficial. Likewise, in boxing, it might be useful to think of the torso as launching the fist, in order to relax the upper body and arm and let the power generated by the knees and hips be conducted to the fist efficiently. But of course, you aren't actually launching the fist.
At this point we buy another round of beer and change the topic.
