A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Running
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

An archived Running Dialogue: Image-Falling/Lean Compiled by Oz



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 30th 04, 02:39 PM
Ozzie Gontang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default An archived Running Dialogue: Image-Falling/Lean Compiled by Oz

Below is a marvelous piece of rec.running collegiality. It is not about answering questions, it is about questioning answers and on going dialogue.

It is a wonderful exploration into the physical, scientific, observational, and experiential look at what leaning forward means during a run. Below is the thread shared by all those who partook.

I am interested in the ways to best describe in several different ways what this means to good running form and style. My hope is that in talking about good running form and style, the reader/thinker/runner can experience it and realize that midfoot or ball/heel is what it is about.

For me, this dialogue is about going for the "grace" in communication, in running, and most of all in understanding and educating ourselves.

Ozzie Gontang
Maintainer-rec.running

Thanks very much for the info. Just so I'm clear....:
I guess when I think of running, I think of it as the motion of striding
your legs forward, etc., like sprinters would do. But you are saying that
it is more about lifting your legs straight up (marching) and letting your
body weight/angle control your forward movement?
Are you also saying that, basically, my foot should be hitting the ground
flat, as opposed to having the heel hit first and rolling the foot forward
through the step?

Thanks again,

Kevin


Kevin,

I'd first picture a broom or a 5 foot piece of 1" PVC balanced in the palm of your hand. If the broom or piece of PVC is perfectly balanced it stands there stationary in the palm. If it starts to fall away from your body even a millionth of a degree it will start to fall.

As it starts to fall and you move forward so as to keep that same degree of lean, gravity is carrying the broom or pice of PVC forward and you by moving at the same speed to keep the angle consistent are using gravity to carry it forward.

So for me it's more an image of the Roadrunner/meep-meep. His legs are moving to keep up with his body out there in front.

Or if you were on a unicycle, you'd lean forward and pedal to keep you falling forward without falling down. Now if you attached/tied shoes on the circumference of the tire, you'd get maybe 6 or 8 shoes tied on depending on your shoe size. The shoes would would go heel/ball but since the heel was exactly under or really slightly behind your center of gravity, you'd just keep rolling on.

Now since we have only two of those shoes on our two feet, we have to supply all of those shoes that would keep the unicycle rolling along on the horizontal surface. So depending on my speed, I need to bring the leg through as quickly as needed to continually keep me rolling along with no deceleration and always using gravity to my best advantage.

Ozzie

SwStudio wrote:

Try to lean your entire body forward from the feet,
and your strike instantly becomes softer and less energy-sapping,
not to mention that you'll speed up.

"Dave" wrote
"Lean forward" is the opposite of everything I have ever read or heard
(unless you are talking about sprinting and not distance running).
Won't you have to use more energy to keep your body up at an angle?

SwStudio replied to Dave Begley

Sorry for the confusion. I mean to lean forward almost
imperceptively, but definitely a little.... IMO this helps
soften the impact of the strike and improve the location
of the strike, both in terms of where the body is at that
exact moment in relation to the foot; as well as a better
overall strike placement, as in where on the foot you make
contact with first. If you arch you back a tiny bit, your
upper body won't be at an angle.

It's hard to explain, and I think I'm doing a poor job! I
guess I'm trying to say that it's better to try and shape your
body almost like a banana or boomerang (obviously not
quite as much angle), rather than straight from toe to head.

Ozzie responded to SwStudio


David in your response to Dave I'm with you about the almost
imperceptible forward lean....and I follow and agree with the location
of the foot strike.

As soon as you mentioned "arch your back a tiny bit" we are in
disagreement.

That tiny arch, back banana or boomerang like, is the cause of back of
the shoe heel striking. It is in my mind's eye the flaw that continues
to be missed in teaching people to run.

If you lean back with that little bit of an arch, you'll see that when
I pull down and back on your shoulders, you'll bend in the lower back,
a la boomerang shape. Now if I have you look straight ahead and bend
your upper torso from the base of the sternum to the top of the head a
quarter to three-quarters of an inch...keeping the upper torso erect
and not allowing you to do the leaning with your head; when I pull down
and back on the shoulders,you'll find that the lower back doesn't bend
back but the weight is driven into the souls of the feet.

That's what it means to be running erect with a forward lean. The
balanced pole with a half degree lean and me moving along keeping the
same degree of lean so that I am using gravity to get me to where I
want to go with the least amount of effort.

As Brian says, someone from the side will not notice the difference.
But when I lean a half degree more and while maintaining the same
cadence, I can increase my speed by 30 seconds to 2 minutes a mile
faster, no one can figure what I'm doing. So that when a heel striker
tries to keep up with me with bigger strides, I just lean a little more
from the ankle (unseen by the naked eye) and say, "It's hard work
isn't it," and slowly pull away keeping the same cadence as they are.
So I use the same cadence for a 10 minute mile or a 7 minute mile.
It's the lean from the ankle that gives the increase in stride length.
The effort comes from having to bring the foot/leg through a greater
range of motion to maintain the cadence. Hopefully more and more of
rec.runners are getting the verbal picture and the experience.

Great dialogue, and am pleased that we continue to reach for
comprehension and understanding. It is enjoyable to see your thinking
and thought and perspectiv sharing here at rec.running. I appreciate
all that you bring in your queries and observations.

As said over and over again, rec.running for me is a place to have our
answered questioned more than giving answers and opinions without
understanding of the running body as a complete system.

Harry Shanley replied to David SwStudio

Actually, if the broomstick is leaning at an angle, the only way to keep it
from falling is to accelerate in the direction of lean. If you are moving
at a constant speed, the broomstick (or your body) would be perfectly
upright.

The sensation I get when running the "right" way (per Ozzie's postings) is
that I am reaching out front much less than I used to, and having my feet
strike the ground more under my center of gravity as opposed to in front of
it. After years of heel striking (and braking myself on every step), that
feels like a forward lean.

Ozzie responded to Harry:

By Jove, I think he's got it. Well almost.

Harry, I am moving at a constant speed in order to maintain the angle
that the broomstick is leaning. So my constant speed doesn't bring my
body to a perfectly upright position. Otherwise my constant speed
would put me out in front of the broom/body and would lead to the broom
or body falling behind my constant speed.


Then"Tim Downie" shined the light of science on Ozzie's observations:


Umm, actually Ozzie, with the greatest respect I would suggest that your
knowledge of physics is letting you down here. I'm pretty certain that
Harry had it spot on with his comment that you can only balance a leaning
broomstick by *accelerating*. Constant speed won't do it. This is, of
course only true in a vacuum. ;-)

Wind resistance *will* result in a slight lean with a broomstick (Imagine
leaning into a strong wind, you can do this with a constant wind force but
only by virtue of applying a constant counterforce against the ground to
resist the wind).

I suspect for most of us, unless we're actually running hard into a wind,
this effect is going to be minimal.

All this doesn't mean that you can't adjust your centre of gravity though.
In the same way that one can lean a chair back so far before it falls over,
one can make adjustments to ones centre of gravity within limits before your
position becomes critically unstable. You can certainly maintain a "forward"
C of G by altering your stride and body/leg angle. The point is, it's not
really your speed that's helping you maintain it (wind resistance aside).

Does any of this make sense?


"Greg" reflected on the physics and added:


This is a very interesting thread. As an engineer and a beginning runner,
I've been following this discussion closely. This seems like a small point
because the body does this very automatically...at least it seems that way
to me. Here is my take on this broomstick business.

If I am a broomstick, standing perfectly upright and motionless, I'll call
that 0 degrees, 0 velocity, and 0 acceleration. Now, if I start pivot on my
axis (the point where I meet the ground) so that my 'top' moves between 0
and 1 degree, my 'top' is accelerating. Left unchecked, I would continue to
accelerate until I hit the ground and was laying down (+90 degrees).

However, if once my 'top' reaches 1 degree, and my pivot point begins to
accelerate at the same rate as my 'top', the accelerations cancel. If my
pivot point continues to accelerate, my 'top' would move back toward 0
degrees, and if this continued, I would fall down backward (-90 degrees).
But, if at the point that I'm leaning forward at 1 degree, and have canceled
the acceleration of the 'top' with the acceleration of the axis, then I can
maintain this 1 degree lean by keeping my axis at this constant velocity.

So, my 'top' is try to accelerate toward the ground due to gravity, but my
constant velocity forward cancels gravity's downward force, leaving only a
forward force...hence, constant forward velocity.

The next step then is to repeat the process by increasing my angle to 2
degrees. My axis must accelerate a little more to cancel the acceleration
of my 'top' from 1 to 2 degrees, then maintain a higher, but constant
velocity to keep me from falling forward.

Boy, I love this geeky stuff. Sorry if this seemed long winded and dull,
but it is very interesting to me.


Tim adds further observations to Greg's comments:

First to Greg's comment:

However, if once my 'top' reaches 1 degree, and my pivot point begins to
accelerate at the same rate as my 'top', the accelerations cancel. If my
pivot point continues to accelerate, my 'top' would move back toward 0
degrees, and if this continued, I would fall down backward (-90 degrees).


Tim replies:

No. Only if your pivot point was accelerating faster than the top.

Then to Greg's observation
But, if at the point that I'm leaning forward at 1 degree, and have
canceled the acceleration of the 'top' with the acceleration of the axis,
then Ican maintain this 1 degree lean by keeping my axis at this constant velocity.


Time responds and goes on to the give an example using a moving train:

You can only maintain the lean by constant acceleration, not velocity.

Imagine you're on a train standing at the station. You lean forward towards
the engine and (if unchecked) you fall over. Imagine now that you lean
forward just at the same time as the train starts. Now you can maintain
your lean as long as the train continues to accelerate.

Imagine now that the train has reached cruising speed. Now you are back to
the same situation as when the train was stationary. i.e. lean forward and
fall over. If this wasn't the case, all trains would be full of people
leaning heavily towards the engine!

Now whether the forward motion is produced external to your body (by a train
for instance) or by your body (eg running) is irrelevant to the physics.
You cannot counteract a constant lean by constant velocity. You need a
constant force which will (barring resiting forces like wind resistance etc)
produce a constant *acceleration*.

Hope this clears things up.

Greg responds

From: "Greg" continues the dialogue with his observations and queries:

Tim...great post!

Very interesting. You obviously put a lot of thought and reason into this.
I have two comments/questions. First comment, I think the train analogy
unnecessarily complicates the issue by adding a second body and set of
forces to be considered.

Second comment/question, if what you say is correct in that, "You can only
maintain the lean by constant acceleration, not velocity", then wouldn't the
result be that your speed would increase over time to keep the angle
constant? What I'm asking is, if I'm constantly accelerating to keep a lean
of 1 degree, won't I be going faster and faster over time?

If the answer is yes, it seems contradictory to experience. If I lean
forward 1 degree, I run at a speed with a certain stride per minute. If I
lean forward another degree, total of 2 degrees, I run at a higher speed
with the same stride per minute. In both cases I had brief acceleration to
either begin or go to the higher speed, but in both cases I run at a
constant speed, with the same stride per minute at a specific angle.

Thanks for this opportunity to exercise my brain! Being out of work has
made me soft. Of course, if I am wrong on this, maybe I deserve to be out
of work! I almost feel like breaking out the old Physics and Dynamics
books, drawing the diagrams and doing the math just to be 100% that I'm on
track with this.

Dave comes back seeking to understand and uses his recent experiences of playing with some of the ideas:

Well, there is my big question with this "lean forward" theory. If
you lean in a train, once you start going a constant speed, you fall
over. So apply that to running. Once you reach a constant speed with
the lean, you are going to fall over, but since you don't, you end up
with your center of gravity being out in front of you and you
constantly have to expend energy to catch yourself from falling.

I've been playing around with different things over my last couple
runs but haven't formed much of an opinion one way or another. I
think the key is to not getting your center of gravity too much in
front or behind your stride. Maybe the "sensation" of leaning forward
is what works for some people.

"Greg" builds on Dave's response and goes out to experience what's been talked about and plays with it.

Dave,

Excellent! I agree that it is key to keep your center of gravity very close
to you. The problem I have with the train analogy is one of Point Of
Reference. Is your POR from the ground outside the train, an observer
inside the train, or the train itself? The train adds complexity that is
not needed to understand the issue. Example: When the train accelerates,
it is actually applying the opposite acceleration to its passengers (for
every action there is an equal and opposite reaction)...the train moves
forward, but the passengers are jerk backward. Also, once the train reaches
cruising speed (constant velocity), from the POR of the person inside the
train, it is the same as being outside on the street.

I just got back from a little "run" and tried to concentrate on this stuff,
but it was very windy. Anyway, it made me think more about my form, and I
had a great time.

Tim Downie comes back and after reflecting on what Greg said adds further clarification:

To Greg's comments:

Very interesting. You obviously put a lot of thought and reason into this.

I have two comments/questions. First comment, I think the train analogy
unnecessarily complicates the issue by adding a second body and set of
forces to be considered.

Second comment/question, if what you say is correct in that, "You can only
maintain the lean by constant acceleration, not velocity", then wouldn't the
result be that your speed would increase over time to keep the angle
constant? What I'm asking is, if I'm constantly accelerating to keep a lean
of 1 degree, won't I be going faster and faster over time?

Time replies:

Yep. My point is you can't maintain a lean beyond your limits of stability
(I'm sure there's a proper technical term for those limits) when stationary
by simply moving forward at a constant speed.

To Greg's comments:

If the answer is yes, it seems contradictory to experience. If I lean
forward 1 degree, I run at a speed with a certain stride per minute. If I
lean forward another degree, total of 2 degrees, I run at a higher speed
with the same stride per minute. In both cases I had brief acceleration
to either begin or go to the higher speed, but in both cases I run at a
constant speed, with the same stride per minute at a specific angle.

Tim gives further thought and observations even while under the weather:

I suspect if you watch a video of athletes running, you will see that apart
from when they're accelerating, they'll all have a remarkably upright
posture. The times of maximum lean are when they're accelerating most
(starting from starting blocks say, for a 100m sprint). Once up to maximum
speed, they're bodies become more or less vertical.

Note that I haven't said that you can't have any lean (remember the chair
analogy?). You can certainly alter your centre of gravity by altering your
posture and stride. When running, you can't really alter the point at which
you pick your feet up off of the ground. What you can do though, is alter
how far ahead you plant your foot for the next stride. Theses two points
crudely represent your limits of stability. Move your centre of gravity
beyond these points and you have to take some active corrective action to
stop yourself falling.

( By analogy, when you lean back in a chair, once the combined centre
of gravity of you and the chair is moved beyond the point of contact
of the back legs with the floor, you will topple backwards).

By avoiding overstriding and leaning slightly forward you can move
your centre of gravity forward relative to these two points.What you
can't do, is move your centre of gravity beyond these limits of
stability and expect to maintain that position just by running at a
constant speed.

Now I appreciate that this all might seem like nitpicking, but it's fairly
basic physics and once you start believing that a leaning broomstick can be
held in leaning position by simply moving horizontally at a constant speed
you're on the slippery slope to beliving in astrology, crystal healing and
other nonsense.

Now I really must take myself and my streaming nose to bed! See you all in
the morning.

Doug Burke following the thread throws in:

Very interesting discussion here.
Where were you guys during the "physics as it relates to treadmill vs. road running" debate a while back??? I'll enlighten you if you wish.

I think Tim's example of the train clarified it a little for me but not
completely. Another example is a cyclist going around a curve on a flat surface.
The cyclist leans into the curve to maintain a center of gravity. He does not
have to accelerate to do this, just keep the same speed and curve to keep the
same angle of lean. If speed or curve radius changes however he will fall over
if his angle doesn't change, either to the inside or outside of the curve
depending on what increases or decreases.

So, I think Tim may be correct but not completely sure.

Looks like we could all adjourn to a bar and really tear up the
place.......wink.

"Hank Trent" queries Greg's post where he went out and played with the ideas and also spoke of keeping the center of gravity close

What about the fact that the lean isn't constant, due to "catching" yourself
by extending one foot forward? In other words, you're stationary, you lean
forward 1 degree, you start to fall, so you put one foot in front of you,
recentering your gravity over your front foot. If the action were frozen at
that moment, you could theoretically balance that way forever, with your
weight over your forward foot and the rear foot raised. Instead, the
momentum carries your torso forward, you instantly start to lean forward
again, start to fall again, and now have to bring the rear foot in front of
you to catch yourself again. Repeat, and you're running.

As a beginning runner who's definitely *not* an engineer, that's what it
feels like to me when I try to do what Ozzie describes, but I have no idea
how the forces involved would actually work.

Hank Trent

Greg makes some comments having returned from an evening out.

Doug,

Well, I've already been to the bar tonight, but I'll go back with you guys
anytime. The cyclist and the curve don't really apply here because there is
a centrifugal force component to going through a turn that is not any part
of the leaning broomstick analogy. I wish I had seen the
physics/treadmill/running thread...maybe I'll look it up on Google.
Regardless, I hope you are a bar right now and I hope Tim feels better.
Sounds like he might have whatever is going around, and I know a lot of
people who are not feeling well right now because of it. I wish that stuff
on nobody.

Hope you both have a great weekend!



Tim Downie weights in cold or no cold:
and responds to Doug comments:

Doug said:

Very interesting discussion here.

Where were you guys during the "physics as it relates to treadmill vs. road
running" debate a while back??? I'll enlighten you if you wish. I think Tim's example of the train clarified it a little for me but not completely. Another example is a cyclist going around a curve on a flat surface.

The cyclist leans into the curve to maintain a center of gravity. He does
not have to accelerate to do this, just keep the same speed and curve to keep
the same angle of lean.

Tim responds adding understanding thought the physics of Doug's example:

Sorry. Wrong again! ;-)

Acceleration is defined as a change in *velocity* over time. Velocity is a
combination of speed *and* direction. A cyclist turning a corner at a
constant speed is in fact accelerating as his direction is constantly
changing. This does not mean that his speed is increasing though. The
cyclist does have to put extra energy in to maintain a constant speed when
cornering.
  #2  
Old October 30th 04, 05:05 PM
Lanceandrew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It is a wonderful exploration into the physical, scientific, observational,
and experiential look at what leaning forward means during a run
_
You can teach running via a universal template. Michael Johnson defies most
schooled and scholared running lore. Early in his career lots of coaches
tried to tell Michael Johnson how to "properly run". Lots of so called,
"Professional Running Coaches" tried to change his unconventional running
style. Michael Johnson refused to listen to those coaches, defied all that
"inside the box" running lore, and stayed with his unconventional upright
running style. Defying "so called" wisdom only got him numerous world record,
medals, you all know the story. He's arguably one of the greatest runners in
the history of the world.

Since our own individual physical structure and striking style is unique....you
have to allow and be open to the fact that individuals may achieve optimum
performance via _radically_ different forms. I repeat, _radically_ different
forms/styles. There is no singular right approach to running. There are lots
of great unconventional runners at all distances.

"With his rigid, upright style and minimal knee lift, Johnson has an
unconventional sprinting form that has been likened to that of Jesse Owens.
Johnson's former high school coach, Joel Ezar, says, "He runs like a statue,
straight up. They say his feet never leave the ground." Johnson's current
coach, Clyde Hart, explained to the London Times, "Foot placement is a real key
to speed. Many athletes place a foot slightly in front of their center of
gravity and that actually causes a blocking effect. Michael may give up a
little in stride length but he never stops moving and his feet form nearly a
complete circle."

  #3  
Old October 31st 04, 01:49 PM
Doug Freese
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Lanceandrew" wrote in message
...
It is a wonderful exploration into the physical, scientific,
observational,

and experiential look at what leaning forward means during a run
_
You can teach running via a universal template. Michael Johnson defies
most
schooled and scholared running lore. Early in his career lots of
coaches
tried to tell Michael Johnson how to "properly run". Lots of so
called,
"Professional Running Coaches" tried to change his unconventional
running
style. Michael Johnson refused to listen to those coaches, defied
all that
"inside the box" running lore, and stayed with his unconventional
upright
running style. Defying "so called" wisdom only got him numerous world
record,
medals, you all know the story. He's arguably one of the greatest
runners in
the history of the world.


True, but if he had adopted better form he might even be better.


Since our own individual physical structure and striking style is
unique....you
have to allow and be open to the fact that individuals may achieve
optimum
performance via _radically_ different forms. I repeat, _radically_
different
forms/styles. There is no singular right approach to running. There
are lots
of great unconventional runners at all distances.


True again but I raise the same question as above, the only proof is to
try many forms but we know this way too dangerous.

-DF having fun playing the devil's game.


  #4  
Old October 31st 04, 03:21 PM
Lanceandrew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

DFTrue, but if he had adopted better form he might even be better.
___

"better" form? you mean to "conventional form", don't you doug?

i laugh at running instructors who assert a singular appropriate form/approach
to running. they're simply small minded "inside the box thinkers and don't
like having to explain and or acknowledge those that defy their running
wisdom/lore.

Q. What's proper head/eye positioning for distance road runners? What's the
lore, how is it coached? eyes on the horizon? head straight eye forward
glancing 10 meters down on the road?

Could someone please ring Ms. Paula Radcliffe to let her know she runs
improperly? Her head bobs around violently and her eyes roll back in her
sockets. That's exactly how she runs. Sure.....lots of "inside the box"
thinkers, small minded coaches have tried to bring her form/style in line with
"convention" and "running lore"...but Paula would have none of that. What does
she say about her form? "[The head bobbing] is something that I've always done.
What I have started doing now is rolling my eyes back in my sockets so you see
just the whites".

Oh dear, Micheal Johnson and Paula Radcliffe won't conform with proper running
form. Who do these greatest runners in the history of the world think they are
breaking all the rules and illustrating there is no singular proper way to run?
They have a lot of nerve shattering, completely erasing all the fastest times
of all the "convetional" runners.

Wait a minute! I have a thought! Maybe, just maybe if you allow runners to
run in a form that's comfortable for them, they can develop the mental side,
the psychological side of running. Oh my goodness...I might be on to
something here. Your greatest asset in running is mental strength, not
running form.

What's Deena Drossin (Kastor) say about Paula Radcliffe shattering the previous
marathon WR? "It’s an incredible feat, but it shows that it is her mental
strength that is her greatest asset. It’s not her form – her head bobbing,
her toe running. It shows it’s mind strength that gets you to break those
barriers".

  #5  
Old October 31st 04, 04:39 PM
Ozzie Gontang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

Lanceandrew or Lance/Andrew or Lance An' Drew,

Wonderful dialogue. I came here to rec.running back in '95/'96 to have my answers questioned. As I said from the first posts I hesitantly posted, what I am sharing is folklore. If it works for you, use it. If it doesn't don't give it any energy, and find someone who makes sense and whose folklore works for you. If you can't find anyone, then create your own and come back and share it with us so we can learn. The same goes if you learn some great folklore from someone else. Come back and share it with us so we can question those answers and continue to be life long learners questing for continuous improvement (Kaizen).

I've always aspired to the Brookes Bowerman school of running. Brookes Johnson talked about the forward lean. Bill Bowerman spoke about running erect. The Brookes Bowerman School of running says: Run erect with a forward lean.

What is marvelous about the human animal is that there will always be someone to disprove that what most people held as impossible or for that case what everybody held as impossible became possible by the person who did it, no matter what the form and style.

In the book "Play as if your life depends on it" the author speaks about our ability to survive has more to do with our ability to adapt to any environmental conditions and that our bipedalism and curiosity helped us populate the earth. Some great reading pieces at his web site: http://www.goanimal.com.

Another piece is that no matter the biomechanical defects or deficiencies or other problems or injuries one suffers, the thinking body and the brain find away around them in order to function. The author spends a good deal of time on function. He speaks about very few world class athletes would be able to have survived back in the savannahs and mixed environments because they have become too specialized.

With respect to your observations about Michael Johnson and Paula Radcliffe, all I say and continue to say is that it would be interesting for people to play with seeing what it would take to run injury free if they:

Played with using minimal vertical displacement,
Used gravity to their advantage,
Played with grace and efficiency,
Played with their posture the other 90+ hours they are awake standing,
sitting and moving,
Played with the phase locking that other animals get into regarding
their breathing at different speeds,
Learned how to relax antagonist muscles maximally when the agonist
muscle group was working,
Learned what muscles they didn't need to use unnecessarily and
wastefully when running
Played with postural balance in place and in motion,
Played with Beginner's Mind,
Observed the way most people walk snapping their lower leg forward
from the knee
Observed that when people slip they fall backwards and come up with
their own theory that allows me to learn more about my own
theory of one time learning from falling as a child between
3 and 8 and saying I will never fall again that carried unseen
and unrecognized in the slight backward lean in the thorasic
area in preparation by the thinking body should it ever fall
again,
Deconstruct the beliefs that only physiologists, kineseologists,
medical doctors, and others who have been educated in specific
areas are the one's that know
Played as it their life depends on it.

Someone said:
Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe,
It can achieve.

Ralph Waldo Trine said:
Individuals carry their success or failure within them
It does not depend on outside conditions.

Back to Paula and Michael, it's first the ability of being able to do something no matter what the obstacles. For them there are no obstacles, just hurdles over which to jump. We set up artificial measures of 100 meters, an Iron Man, a 10,000 meter distance and then see who is fastest at that distance in the world.

The word competition from the Latin means to "Seek with." There is a generation of great athletes who competed and did not compete in the 1980 Olympics. For those great athletes they were not able to seek with their peers who was "best" on that day, at that time, in that event. If Michael or Paula didn't have any other people compete with them in that event there would be no "seeking with" or competition. The author of Play As If... speaks about athletics may have done more harm than good as it has created more people who were not able to make the team from grade school on and that the effect is that we have more spectators than players. And that's another thread for another day.

It's the ability to be in the present and accomplish what needs to be accomplished in order to achieve what one wants to achieve.

If there are correct ways to do a quad in ice skating, or a triple somersault with a full twist, then maybe we can learn someting about a right approach to running and in that case even in walking.

The closest person to share some of the same conclusions I've arrived at over the years of experimenting with my walking, standing, sitting, running, breathing has been the work that Danny Dreyer has created in ChiRunning. Danny changed my idea about knee lift and as Lanceandrew pointed out in Michael Johnson, there is minimal knee lift in fast running, in good running, in world record running.

I'm off to the Marathon Clinic for my own run. Lanceandrew, I look forward to the continued dialogue that Doug and I have been playing with at rec.running for almost 10 years.


In health and on the run,
Ozzie Gontang
Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975
Maintainer - rec.running FAQ
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
Mindful Running:
http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp





(Lanceandrew) thoughtfully responded to Ozzie's comment:

It is a wonderful exploration into the physical, scientific, observational,

and experiential look at what leaning forward means during a run

by sharing these thoughts:
_
You can teach running via a universal template. Michael Johnson defies most
schooled and scholared running lore. Early in his career lots of coaches
tried to tell Michael Johnson how to "properly run". Lots of so called,
"Professional Running Coaches" tried to change his unconventional running
style. Michael Johnson refused to listen to those coaches, defied all that
"inside the box" running lore, and stayed with his unconventional upright
running style. Defying "so called" wisdom only got him numerous world record,
medals, you all know the story. He's arguably one of the greatest runners in
the history of the world.

Since our own individual physical structure and striking style is unique....you
have to allow and be open to the fact that individuals may achieve optimum
performance via _radically_ different forms. I repeat, _radically_ different
forms/styles. There is no singular right approach to running. There are lots
of great unconventional runners at all distances.

"With his rigid, upright style and minimal knee lift, Johnson has an
unconventional sprinting form that has been likened to that of Jesse Owens.
Johnson's former high school coach, Joel Ezar, says, "He runs like a statue,
straight up. They say his feet never leave the ground." Johnson's current
coach, Clyde Hart, explained to the London Times, "Foot placement is a real key
to speed. Many athletes place a foot slightly in front of their center of
gravity and that actually causes a blocking effect. Michael may give up a
little in stride length but he never stops moving and his feet form nearly a
complete circle."

And Lanceandrew replied to Doug again thoughtfully with:

From:
(Lanceandrew)
Newsgroups: rec.running
Date: 30 Oct 2004 15:05:10 GMT
References:
Organization: AOL
http://www.aol.com
Subject: An archived Running Dialogue: Image-Falling/Lean Compiled by Oz
Message-ID:
Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com rec.running:414845

It is a wonderful exploration into the physical, scientific, observational,

and experiential look at what leaning forward means during a run
_
You can teach running via a universal template. Michael Johnson defies most
schooled and scholared running lore. Early in his career lots of coaches
tried to tell Michael Johnson how to "properly run". Lots of so called,
"Professional Running Coaches" tried to change his unconventional running
style. Michael Johnson refused to listen to those coaches, defied all that
"inside the box" running lore, and stayed with his unconventional upright
running style. Defying "so called" wisdom only got him numerous world record,
medals, you all know the story. He's arguably one of the greatest runners in
the history of the world.

Since our own individual physical structure and striking style is unique....you
have to allow and be open to the fact that individuals may achieve optimum
performance via _radically_ different forms. I repeat, _radically_ different
forms/styles. There is no singular right approach to running. There are lots
of great unconventional runners at all distances.

"With his rigid, upright style and minimal knee lift, Johnson has an
unconventional sprinting form that has been likened to that of Jesse Owens.
Johnson's former high school coach, Joel Ezar, says, "He runs like a statue,
straight up. They say his feet never leave the ground." Johnson's current
coach, Clyde Hart, explained to the London Times, "Foot placement is a real key
to speed. Many athletes place a foot slightly in front of their center of
gravity and that actually causes a blocking effect. Michael may give up a
little in stride length but he never stops moving and his feet form nearly a
complete circle."
  #6  
Old October 31st 04, 10:52 PM
Doug Freese
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Lanceandrew" wrote in message
...
DFTrue, but if he had adopted better form he might even be better.
___

"better" form? you mean to "conventional form", don't you doug?


Is it a spade or a shovel your playing with words. In your terms, yes,
conventional form.

i laugh at running instructors who assert a singular appropriate
form/approach
to running. they're simply small minded "inside the box thinkers and
don't
like having to explain and or acknowledge those that defy their
running
wisdom/lore.


My entire point - in the box or outside the box or half way, you can't
really tell which is best unless you try both. I'm not taking sides so
save the windmill tilting for another day.





Q. What's proper head/eye positioning for distance road runners?
What's the
lore, how is it coached? eyes on the horizon? head straight eye
forward
glancing 10 meters down on the road?


Facing forward which is usually in the direction you are running.

I sliced the rest of your tangential yammering. I'm not biting on your
straw man .

-DougF


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rec.running FAQ, part 1 of 8 Ozzie Gontang Running 3 October 27th 04 06:24 AM
rec.running FAQ, part 1 of 8 Ozzie Gontang Running 1 October 8th 04 06:24 AM
rec.running FAQ, part 1 of 8 Ozzie Gontang Running 5 September 10th 04 06:15 AM
rec.running FAQ, part 1 of 8 Ozzie Gontang Running 5 May 11th 04 12:50 PM
rec.running FAQ, part 1 of 8 Ozzie Gontang Running 8 March 28th 04 12:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.