I imagine lots could be added to this poster as well as to the communication of pose method in the US.
The Running Form Thread
- Thread starter Last Place Jason
- Start date
I imagine lots could be added to this poster as well as to the communication of pose method in the US.
I think any additional info/explanation should come below. You don't want to clutter the graphic or it loses its power/efficacy.
Admittedly, I haven't studied Lydiard extensively. From what I understand, he supported the idea of periodization where there was a base-building phase followed by a "speedwork" phase. Maff basically says the same thing... I think. I know Maff's idea of base-building, but am less familiar with Lydiard's approach. I have always been skeptical of the claims that anaerobic workouts inhibit aerobic base-building assuming the training routine has enough rest to allow for recovery.
I like the Kenyan approach. A friend of mine spent significant time in Kenya doing research for his PhD. He's a pretty elite ultrarunner himself, so he spent A LOT of time immersed in their running culture at the running camps in the mountains. He said their training consisted of a lot of 10k-ish (pace and distance) runs up and down mountain roads. There wasn't a lot of long, slow runs.
I like the approach. In fact, my own training is pretty similar with far less volume. I do mostly what would e described as Fartleks on mountain trails. I do it mostly because it's really, really fun, but it has resulted in PRs at 50k and 50 miles, with noticeable improvement in 100 milers. Since I haven't run an easy hundo after the change in training, I can't really use finish times as an indicator.
Yah, I haven't read that much about it either. Lately I've been trying to back off on reading the running stuff, but I think Lydiard had three phases.
Cool to hear your friend confirm what I had read, and what I want to apply in my own running. I got a little caught up in the mileage bug when I started thinking seriously about running, but I just don't think it's right for me, and so having you and others support that is really helpful. Here's my present running routine, somewhat sidetracked this last month because of my knee:
M: ST: Front
Tu: Medium run
W: ST: Back
Th: Fast run
F: ST: Top
Sa: Slow run
Su: St: Bottom (legs), and Raried Run/Recovery run
Med = Tempo Run, ∼60% max distance
Fast = Intervals & Hills
Slow = Max Distance Run
Varied run = slow jog to track, bounding, skipping, running backwards, stairs
As you can see, I'm thinking of adding bounding, skipping, and running backwards once in a while. Do you think there's value in that? I'm mainly running on fairly flat asphalt and roads, so I'd like to do something to increase my hip mobility and range of motion. I've also got some ply boxes but haven't been able to use them much because of the knee-tweak.
P.S., what does your friend study?
Okay, a few points of disagreement with the poster:
#1. The first pane shows the runner on his toes. That's a function of pace, nit something that should be done at every speed.
#2. Also the first pane: There's mention of minimizing "ground time." Again, this is a function of pace. There is such thing as too little time spent on the ground.
#3. Pane 2: The 'falling forward" thing is confusing... which we've already debated earlier in the thread.
#4. Pane 3: There's no need to actively pull the foot up... it happens as a function of forward momentum via hip flexion.
#5. Pane 3: The Coriolis effect has absolutely nothing to do with running. In fact, this is one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard... it far surpasses the "gravity is responsible for forward motion" in regards to scientific integrity.
#1. The first pane shows the runner on his toes. That's a function of pace, nit something that should be done at every speed.
#2. Also the first pane: There's mention of minimizing "ground time." Again, this is a function of pace. There is such thing as too little time spent on the ground.
#3. Pane 2: The 'falling forward" thing is confusing... which we've already debated earlier in the thread.
#4. Pane 3: There's no need to actively pull the foot up... it happens as a function of forward momentum via hip flexion.
#5. Pane 3: The Coriolis effect has absolutely nothing to do with running. In fact, this is one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard... it far surpasses the "gravity is responsible for forward motion" in regards to scientific integrity.
That workout looks good. I think anything with variety, especially weight training mixed with running, will be effective. Mark C. has a few stretches he teaches to increase joint mobility... I'll see if I can dig up some info. I DO think there's value to anything that adds more dynamic movement than just running, so skipping, bounding, running backward, and jumping can only help. I sort of do this already on the aformentioned Fartlek runs... mostly because it's fun to traverse the various rocky surfaces in a variety of ways. and I get bored when waiting for everyone else after the "sprinting" parts of the Fartleks.
This is the guy: http://www.gvsu.edu/history/david-eaton-124.htm. I can't remember the exact topic of this dissertation... I think it had to do with the cattle trade in Kenya.
Cool, thanks for the feedback and link. I fixed the formatting but you got the point. I do the weights mostly for fitness but there's some run-specific stuff I've worked in recently. Like you say, some of this stuff would be unnecessary if I were running trails, but I'm trying to avoid too much repetitive stress, and like you say, it also makes it more fun.
Jason,
1) The first pane shows and states to be on the forefoot not the toes. Yes the heel could be lowered to appear closer to touching which would be a safer visual interpretation for many viewers.
2) It says to "get out of the running pose more quickly", not to just reduce ground contact time.
3) It is confusing for many buy it is a very important for a runner to grasp, who is using the Pose Method technique to improve their running.
4) Directing the foot is important otherwise it will be left behind the core and thus cause a disporportion between speed of the body and range of motion of the legs. Yes I understand this is not agreed upon by everyone in the world.
5) That is debatable but I will leave that to the science geeks
1) The first pane shows and states to be on the forefoot not the toes. Yes the heel could be lowered to appear closer to touching which would be a safer visual interpretation for many viewers.
2) It says to "get out of the running pose more quickly", not to just reduce ground contact time.
3) It is confusing for many buy it is a very important for a runner to grasp, who is using the Pose Method technique to improve their running.
4) Directing the foot is important otherwise it will be left behind the core and thus cause a disporportion between speed of the body and range of motion of the legs. Yes I understand this is not agreed upon by everyone in the world.
5) That is debatable but I will leave that to the science geeks
Jason,
1) The first pane shows and states to be on the forefoot not the toes. Yes the heel could be lowered to appear closer to touching which would be a safer visual interpretation for most viewers.
2) It says to "get out of the running pose more quickly", not to just reduce ground contact time.
3) It is confusing for many buy it is a very important for a runner to grasp, who is using the Pose Method technique to improve their running.
4) Directing the foot is important otherwise it will be left behind the core and thus cause a disporportion between speed of the body and range of motion of the legs. Yes I understand this is not agreed upon by everyone in the world.
5) That is debatable but I will leave that to the science geeks
I understand all are elements of Pose, which demonstrate the set of teaching cues used by the method. I'm fine with all the points given your explanation... except five.
I cannot fathom any argument, no matter how badly the effect is understood, that could be made to support the idea that the Coriolis effect has any impact on running.
Regarding the coriolis effect: I actually could see two possible reasons the idea could be used, though it would still probably be incorrect. Jeremy, can you give us some detail about where the idea is applied?
Jason,
These explanations about coriolis force seemed to indicate that it can/could have an effect on a runner: http://www.shodor.org/metweb/session4/coriolis.html , http://www.shodor.org/metweb/session4/friction.html . Am I miss interpreting the info?
These explanations about coriolis force seemed to indicate that it can/could have an effect on a runner: http://www.shodor.org/metweb/session4/coriolis.html , http://www.shodor.org/metweb/session4/friction.html . Am I miss interpreting the info?
That explains the movement of air patterns and the coriolis effect, but does nothing to explain how or why the effect could affect a runner.
I thought it could be used to explain the rotation of the hip and the amount of energy needed to move the foot from one ground contact point to another. Since the foot is essentially a weight at the end of pendulum, it's motion would somehow enduce a vert weak coriolis effect. The same deal could happen with arm swing. I'm not enough of a physicist to fully understand how that affect would take place, but I'm pretty sure it would be too weak to affect movement or efficiency.
If Romanov is referring to anything related to THE coriolis effect (due to the spinning Earth), it would be idiotic.
I thought it could be used to explain the rotation of the hip and the amount of energy needed to move the foot from one ground contact point to another. Since the foot is essentially a weight at the end of pendulum, it's motion would somehow enduce a vert weak coriolis effect. The same deal could happen with arm swing. I'm not enough of a physicist to fully understand how that affect would take place, but I'm pretty sure it would be too weak to affect movement or efficiency.
If Romanov is referring to anything related to THE coriolis effect (due to the spinning Earth), it would be idiotic.
We're almost exactly on the 45th parallel. The bigger lake, closest to the center of St. Paul's Slavic American community, is three miles in circumference. The other lake, still near a fairly abundant Eastern European community, although more mixed with Irish and Germans, is 1.7 miles in circumference, with mild chipseal paths. In Minneapolis (City of Lakes), which is (or at least used to be) more Scandinavian in character, direction around the lakes doesn't seem to matter. So I'm thinking, like you, that this may be more folk ideology than real Coriolan effect. Nonetheless, if we drained the lakes for new condo development, presumably the water would twirl clockwise as predicted by established pseudo-science. Your thoughts?
The chipseal was the missing variable. That would require you to bend your knees more, which lowers your center of gravity. Since we know the Scandanavians are taller, their center of gravity is higher. Those two facts would suggest the Minneapolis crowd would be more efficient at falling forward, hence limiting the need to utilize the Coriolis effect.
Regarding the draining of the lakes: it depends. Are they draining uphill or downhill?
Regarding the draining of the lakes: it depends. Are they draining uphill or downhill?
Yes. Perceived motion increases as a function of socioeconomic status. You're not familiar with the field of sociocultural physics?
