The Running Form Thread

Back to pelvic tilt (and I don't know where else to put this), I've been reading a little about trigger point therapy and I am going to try to lengthening my quads to prevent some of the forward tilt as discussed below. I'll try the couch stretch and see if that helps too.

(2 & 3) Quadriceps and IT Band: The quadriceps muscles, which connect in the top of the pelvis, will cause the pelvis to tilt forward and the buttocks to shift back. As the pelvis tilts, the upper body shifts forward to counterbalance the weight, often compressing the area surrounding lumbar discs 4 and 5. The more compression there is on the L4-5 area, the more you compromise the neurological feed to the lower extremities. Furthermore, the hamstring muscles and IT band, which counteract the quadriceps muscles, can become stretched beyond their intended functional capacity causing greater inefficiency within the body. Rather than simply massaging the IT band and hamstrings, we address the most critical factor in this equation, the pelvic tilt, by lengthening the quadriceps through our self-massage therapy techniques. This will produce better long-term results and more efficient biomechanics.

http://tptherapy.com/unlock-your-body-ultimate-6-areas.php
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sid
Nice discussion! I'm getting into this topic a bit late.

Regarding gravity and energy, anything that has the potential to fall has potential energy. Once it has finished falling, it no longer has potential energy. Even if one conceptualizes running as perpetual falling, that would still require perpetual lifting in order to regain and restore that potential energy perpetually.

However, I get the sense that the different conceptualizations of falling while running is particularly helpful in optimizing technique in people who do not run efficiently. The goal of running is to move smoothly across a surface, not to leap over it or stomp through each step. I'll draw the analogy to a duck that is capable of diving underwater or flying over it, but the most energy-efficient way to traverse a lake is to paddle across it.

Regarding those strength training exercises done while perched on top of balance and medicine balls. I don't think that the idea is maximum weight, but to rather train the whole body. For those who haven't tried those types of exercises, it's really a neat experience and forces muscles all over the body to work together in ways that are different from just isolating specific regions. It also helps balance, which isn't a bad thing.

Regarding various factors, I'm going to put conditioning (including training/form/sleep/diet) before genetics. How many people other than world record holders really reach their genetic potential? Other than pro athletes most people have to compromise peak conditioning with work, family, etc.

Regarding learning optimal form at a given pace, I think it depends. I really try to run with approximately the same carriage no matter what speed I'm going. In fact, unless I have my GPS watch, I have difficulty differentiating between 9mm and 10:30mm, particularly if I'm just running based on perceived exertion. (This may be due to lack of experience.) The optimal learning pace is probably going to be different for everyone, but there probably is a range which is reasonable. I found the Lee Saxby video to be helpful, though I'm not exactly sure what pace he sets the treadmill at in the demonstration.

Just my thoughts, that's all.
 
However, I get the sense that the different conceptualizations of falling while running is particularly helpful in optimizing technique in people who do not run efficiently. The goal of running is to move smoothly across a surface, not to leap over it or stomp through each step. I'll draw the analogy to a duck that is capable of diving underwater or flying over it, but the most energy-efficient way to traverse a lake is to paddle across it.

Nice analogy!

Regarding those strength training exercises done while perched on top of balance and medicine balls. I don't think that the idea is maximum weight, but to rather train the whole body. For those who haven't tried those types of exercises, it's really a neat experience and forces muscles all over the body to work together in ways that are different from just isolating specific regions. It also helps balance, which isn't a bad thing.

You should check out Kemme Fitness, he has a nice functional fitness program. The thing to remember about working all components of fitness (endurance, strength, agility, timing, balance, coordination, power, & stamina) at once though, is that you will not make as many gains in each component involved. If you isolate them, you'll make greater gains, but it will take more time to work each one individually. There is a trade-off. Functional fitness stuff is great for working a bit of everything in a short amount of time. Sports like basketball, soccer, and rugby, as well as martial arts also work a bit of everything all the time. In training however, serious or pro athletes spend time breaking things down, doing weights, doing agility drills, working on technique, working on stamina, so that all those components are improved when they come back together in performance. Functional fitness is like a sport without any strategy or tactics, great for overall fitness, it seems to me. My preference, however, is to do weights and running, along with some stuff like plyo boxes, jumping rope, mobility stuff, etc., and then, time and scheduling permitting, supplement that with a pick-up game of basketball, get back into karate, or maybe take up jazz dance or something. Unfortunately, time and schedule do not currently permit.

Regarding various factors, I'm going to put conditioning (including training/form/sleep/diet) before genetics. How many people other than world record holders really reach their genetic potential? Other than pro athletes most people have to compromise peak conditioning with work, family, etc.

I agree. For fitness/recreational purposes, who cares about genetics? A neighbor's sister who does triathlons asked me, "what are you training for?" I answered, "longevity."

Regarding learning optimal form at a given pace, I think it depends. I really try to run with approximately the same carriage no matter what speed I'm going. In fact, unless I have my GPS watch, I have difficulty differentiating between 9mm and 10:30mm, particularly if I'm just running based on perceived exertion. (This may be due to lack of experience.) The optimal learning pace is probably going to be different for everyone, but there probably is a range which is reasonable. I found the Lee Saxby video to be helpful, though I'm not exactly sure what pace he sets the treadmill at in the demonstration.

Yah, I wouldn't say my method would work for all, and I certainly wouldn't say my threshold pace for good form is universal, but I think it's worth giving a try if, like me, you don't particularly enjoy thinking about form when you run. I'm lazy that way. I would rather put in greater mental effort forcing the pace than thinking about form. And I know in a month or two, barring further setbacks, I won't even need to expend the mental energy forcing the pace. 9mm will become my new easy pace. Then I'll be completely free to zone out, which is what I love about running the most, getting into that zen-like, meditative state.

I also have difficulty feeling pace, but I know when my form feels good and effortless. Now, thanks to my GPS gadget, I know that that is roughly at supra-9 mm pace. I just need to look down at my left foot, and when it's consistently landing well, I know I must be running 9 mm pace or above. Also, thanks to my Garmin, I'm beginning to get a feel for the difference between 10 mm pace and 11 mm pace. At 10 mm pace, I feel like I can run forever, aerobically speaking, and can get into that meditative state, but have to begin concentrating on form or else my left foot gets a bit off and my posture sometimes slouches a bit. At 11 mm pace, I feel noticeably plodding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sid
  • Like
Reactions: Sid
Yes, I agree. But, the barefoot/minimalist shoe group was required to have trained over 50% off their time barefoot and minimalist shoes for at least 6 months. It was interesting to see that a fairly high percentage of barefoot/minimalist shoe runners heel striked.

Also, one Chi Runner wore traditional shoes and still had lower impact rates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sid
Yes, I agree. But, the barefoot/minimalist shoe group was required to have trained over 50% off their time barefoot and minimalist shoes for at least 6 months. It was interesting to see that a fairly high percentage of barefoot/minimalist shoe runners heel striked.

Also, one Chi Runner wore traditional shoes and still had lower impact rates.
There wasn't a barefoot group. Just a minimalist group. And there's wide variety in what is considered minimalist. I have a couple of pairs of minimalist shoes. With 3mm soles (Aqua Lites), I never heel strike. With 10-13 mm stack height (Bare Access) I sometimes do unless I pay attention to my (non-Chi) form. I always land under my COM. I imagine I could put on my barely-used Kayanos and avoid heel-striking too, with proper attention to form. So?
 
There was a barefoot/minimalist group. They were 'experienced' in barefoot running but most/all ran in minimalist shoes. The study lists what shoes they wore. I guess what thing the study and we Chi instructors try to get out is this. Chi Running has other benefits than what barefoot running accomplishes. Not including the mental benefits these include pelvic/spinal rotation and the lean.
 
Overall, a really nice study. I do have concerns about their definition of minshoe. Only one or two shoes were zero drop, 3mm or less thickness. The study really isn't capable of saying anything about barefoot running, though it does seem to support Chi running. Nice read. Thanks!

Here's a link to the study.
 
There was a barefoot/minimalist group. They were 'experienced' in barefoot running but most/all ran in minimalist shoes.
That's my point: even if you're used to running barefoot, you may need to think about form once you put shoes on. My preference is to run barefoot and not have to think about form. Interestingly, the few times I've had to run with shoes on, I auto-corrected my form after a while and stopped heel-striking.
The study lists what shoes they wore.
I don't see that on the link you sent, but no matter.
I guess what thing the study and we Chi instructors try to get out is this. Chi Running has other benefits than what barefoot running accomplishes.
That study doesn't prove that because no one was running barefoot.
Not including the mental benefits these include pelvic/spinal rotation and the lean.
That's the independent variable you need to test. Have Chi runners and nonChi runners BOTH run barefoot (i.e., without footwear) then compare. I'm not saying Chi running won't be proven more efficient or less impactful, but this study hasn't shown that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Barefoot Dama
Bare Lee, the study proves Chi Runners had less impact and more efficiency than every group. What else is there?

I can send you the entire paper, it's 110 pages and I'm reading it now. Running truly barefoot may be less impactful than CR. But by far most Americans run in shows all the time. Being able to run in any shoe and reduce impact with Chi Running is huge and this study proves it.

The study shows that even when you run barefoot and run in shoes, you aren't necessarily learning better running technique.

Efficient running technique becomes habit with practice. I think about technique for a few minutes during an 8 hour run, that's it.
 
Being able to run in any shoe and reduce impact with Chi Running is huge and this study proves it.
Sort of. You would need to know what kind of nonChi runners were selected, how they were selected, if they knew anything about form, if they all had equivalent experience, if the researcher had any biases or conflict of interest (has he trained in Chi running? Is he in any way partial to it? Since Chi runners tend to be very evangelical, this is a real concern), and so on. Believe me, if you have ever tried to set up a lab-type study, you would know it's really hard to isolate one variable and remove all observer biases. There are statistical means to diminish this problem, but few are willing or able to apply them.

The study shows that even when you run barefoot and run in shoes, you aren't necessarily learning better running technique.
No, it doesn't, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. This study may have shown that if you run in shoes, you should probably think about form.
 
Lee, I like you. We are similar in many ways. I was a scientist and researcher before becoming a coach so I know of the downsides of published studies. You are correct. It sounds like the researchers were not biased in any way. I agree, the study could have been done better but no study is perfect.

Some CR instructors may sound evangelical but it is just a technique based on physics and human biomechanics. Don't let the name and Chi scare you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bare Lee
Being able to run in any shoe and reduce impact with Chi Running is huge and this study proves it.
Sort of. You would need to know what kind of nonChi runners were selected, how they were selected, if they knew anything about form, if they all had equivalent experience, if the researcher had any biases or conflict of interest (has he trained in Chi running? Is he in any way partial to it? Since Chi runners tend to be very evangelical, this is a real concern), and so on. Believe me, if you have ever tried to set up a lab-type study, you would know it's really hard to isolate one variable and remove all observer biases. There are statistical means to diminish this problem, but few are willing or able to apply them.

The study shows that even when you run barefoot and run in shoes, you aren't necessarily learning better running technique.
No, it doesn't, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. This study may have shown that if you run in shoes, you should probably think about form.

1. It is rare indeed that a single study could "prove" any one thing except for what happened to the sample. Studies don't prove. Repeated experiments, done in different ways, with controls, over a period of time, can sometimes accumulate evidence that points in a clear direction that is nearly indisputable by experts who have done their best to reasonably analyze all the results in context. Not to nitpick, but as a scientist and researcher, one must be careful of language. Proof implies something is indisputable by reasonable people. Studies involve sampling, and typically small samples at that. This is where the media gets it wrong too "study proves broccoli cures your whatever" then next week "some other study proves it causes your whatever" and then people get frustrated and decide all results are meaningless, so it's worth the nit pick imho.

2. No time to read someone else's dissertation, as I'm trying to research and propose for my own, but a quick skim does seem to suggest to me that the investigator tried to take things into account. Most of these studies are so poorly done that they can be considered as noise. This one seems to strive to do better. Good for them. (oh, and maybe my individual/unconscious bias was kicking in since I automatically perked up when I saw they were using some of my fav software programs, if not my fav statistical methods, so akin to team sports allegiance???)

3. To address Lee's point on controls: absolutely. Not that I have any better ideas, as human movement studies involving small samples would tend to be grossly underpowered (and lo and behold it looks like the researchers tried some power calculations, which is admirable, but again, I'd take them with a grain of salt given the looming and unknown hidden factors). Pairing subjects by criteria might have controlled better for some of the more obvious traits that would influence results, and is common in clinical practice. Comparing mean values across groups (like speed and weight? ) a little sketchy for this kind of work, but again, at least they tried something. Most of these studies are atrocious. This looks not atrocious.
 

Support Your Club

Forum statistics

Threads
19,156
Messages
183,641
Members
8,705
Latest member
Raramuri7