I took a more careful look at the study and have written it up in my blog: http://ahcuah.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/running-shod-more-efficient/
I took a more careful look at the study and have written it up in my blog: <http://ahcuah.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/running-shod-more-efficient/
Why? Why would a shorter stride length translate to higher effort? I don't get it.
I don't get it either. Look at cyclists. They have an incredibly high turnover and that's considered efficient. Why would having a shorter stride and higher turnover for running be considered less efficient?
+1I think the real question here is why do any of us really care all that much. Any increase or decrease in efficiency probably isn't of epic proportions so the only one who should really care are the elite athletes. Injury prevention studies and the like are far more likely to interest me than efficiency ones. I don't so much care about a few seconds of speed, I very much care about less injuries.
I think the real question here is why do any of us really care all that much. .
Then you will be 1.5 percent more efficient.Today I plan to run with one shoe on and one shoe off. Just for kicks. I will see if I can get a picture.
It is a real shame the study missed the point that barefoot is barefoot.
Well, I am. That's kinda why we're here. Different strokes, I guess.
Well, I am. That's kinda why we're here. Different strokes, I guess.