Well, not a lot has gone well since my last post at the end of July. The pool running didn't help. Within a day or two of getting back to running on dry land, the leg was the same. I found an odd lump on the inside of my tibia at the source of some of the pain, and went to a doctor to get it checked out. Fortunately, it turned out to be nothing serious, and is probably just inflammation related to the muscles and tendons that are giving me problems. I've been working with Mystery Coach on strategies to get back to running while continuing to heal the problem, but so far, there's a lot of pain and not much running.
I'm definitely losing some fitness at this point, and I'm definitely anxious about it, but I'm also seeing it as an opportunity to get freshened up after nearly three years of solid, consistent training. I've been thinking about Thomas lately, and how he came back from a long layoff in short order with great results. I'll hope to do the same once this problem fades into the background. For now, though, I wait.
Thanks for the continued support, and sorry for the lack of posts!
47 comments:
My lay-off was only for about three weeks, but of course all I could do at the time was lying in bed, coughing up half my lungs.
But you're right, I bounced back very quickly after that. Endurance is not lost that quickly.
Eric - I hope you make it through this ok, I think we all know what daemons can be conjured up by the anxiety of not being able to run/train.
I am sure you'll be back in time for some sub zero nasty windchill early morning runs on ice packed roads.
Hell, just thinking about it should speed the healing process.
Maybe you can while away some time pulling your winter running gear out of moth balls and getting it all organized. I still don't understand how they can fly with such huge balls. The moths, that is.
Thomas, you're ruining your mythology! I'll keep believing it was much longer, as it makes me feel better.
Yes, how exciting is it that I get to waste an entire summer of decent training weather on an injury, which heals up just in time for the snow to fly. I must have done something really wrong somewhere down the line for karma to bit me like this.
Moth balls. heh. They do fly kind of erratically, though, don't they? Makes sense to me.
I missed 2 months of training a couple years ago...no running at all. Came back and had a great summer/fall of racing. Even PRed at a couple races. PRs at age 30 always feel good!
Eric
THATS A REAL BUMMER NOT BEING ABLE TO RUN, HOPE YOUR BURNING UP THE TARMAC AGAIN SOON!
Eric - I lost nearly 4 months from early Feb thru the end of May w/ an ITB issue. I then lost another 3-weeks in June-July on vacation where getting in more than 1 run/week was tough. In just 2-3 months of training, my fitness is getting close to my previous level and my speed is already ahead of where I was.
You're in much much better shape than me and 5 years younger - I don't think you'll have problems getting back into prime condition as long as you can get over the injury 100%. I kept trying to find creative ways to run through and all I did was prolong the inevitable - I needed to just let it heal.
Perhaps you can at least work on something during the down time that will pay dividends down the line. Bike sessions? lifting? Maybe just stick w/ the pool for a while.
I took that time to hit the gym regularly, really improved the core, and overall strength and power. It's helped the speed a ton.
I know how frustrating it can be when all you want to do is get out there and you can't. Try to stay positive and get healthy!! Good luck!
Bummer about the leg. I it sucks to all hell now but I'm really curious to see how the extended break affects your running when you come back. Three years is a long time to go....
I just found the picture of you making me pour out that vodka at 2029. It was Stoli, jerk!
Heal up well.
HEY ERIC DUDE< HOWS IT HANGING?
why not try CHIRUNNING ITS A BETTER WAY TO RUN INJURY FREE!
Foot pain, calf pain, lower leg or knee pains can be a thing of the past.
CHECK OUT DANNY DREYER'S WEB SITE AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.
CHIRUNNING HELPED ME SO MUCH AND I RECKON IT WOULD HELP YOU 2.
Thanks for the non-update Eric. I was worried you may have retired from running and taken up lawn bowls.
You need one of those 'anti-gravity' treadmills - almost worked for Paula Radcliffe.
Just wanted to add that this totally bites, Eric.
You train smart and you look after yourself well, so you most certainly didn't have it coming.
Let us know how things progress, you know you have a big cheering section out here.
Yeah, probably more Chi running would've helped, but who knew?? =)
I would recommend trying CHIRUNNING also; If you can learn it you can run with much less impact to the lower legs than power running.
I STARTED TO PRACTICE CHIRUNNING IN MARCH AND HAD A REALLY GOOD MARATHON IN APRIL, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER THE DAY AFTER I WAS ABLE TO RUN WITH VERY FEW ACHES OR PAINS, IT WAS NORMAL FOR ME TO HAVE TO WALK DOWN STAIRS BACKWARDS AFTER A MARATHON MY MUSCLES WERE SO PAINFUL. READ THE BOOK AND GIVE IT A GO!
Thanks for the encouragement and the examples. It's definitely a tough time right now, and depending on what I find out at the doc, it could get better or worse. I saw a P.T. this weekend, and got an idea of what might be going on, so I will be seeing an orthopedic specialist in the next few days, and we'll see what he says.
All due respect to each individual's choices, but Chi Running is not something I will be trying. I'll just stop right there.
Cheers!
It was great to see you in D.L. on Saturday, and thank you for the "congratulations". I only did the 5K and was a little disappointed with my time, but I'd just raced on Thursday night and I think I was still a little tired (I was able to PR at that race, by almost a minute).
I hope your pain has been continually subsiding and you will be back running very soon. You mean a lot to the running community and to "Team BR". Hope to see you at Bridge-to-Bridge and/or the Red River Run.
All the best.
One should always keep an open mind and not dismiss something new until you have tried it! A closed mind means we stop learning and improving ourselves.
Most injury problems are due to poor form or bad Technic , such as something simply like feet pointing out inside of straight ahead.
Chirunning teaches one to be aware of ones body and make changes to body posture if you feel pain instead of going for the bottle of pain killers.
I hope you are injury free again soon and able to enjoy your running but without change to your running style it is likely you will break down again, which would be very sad.
good health young ERIC
Jenn, that's a huge PR! Congrats! I would definitely place the blame for an off day on Saturday on a huge PR day on Thursday-run fast=get tired! haha. Good to see you again. Not sure if I will get to the races this weekend as there is one in town here as well that I will go and watch, but I'll probably get to the Red River Run later this fall.
Listen, as far as Chi running, I respect the fact that it exists, and I respect the fact that some people get some benefit from the concept, but I'm not going to endorse it or practice it.
I've been running seriously for over 20 years, and this is the first significant setback I have had since 1997. So open *your* mind to this: Chi running isn't the solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
"So open *your* mind to this: Chi running isn't the solution to a problem that doesn't exist."
You are absolutely right!! It's the POSE Method that is the answer to your problem that doesn't exist.
If that doesn't work, try running backwards with no clothes on while chanting the Lord's Prayer in Latin.
Let me know how that works...
Since it's still being thrown around on Eric's comments page I'll throw in my two scents.
I went to a Chi Running clinic during which the certified presenter spent an hour telling us to keep our core muscles tight, shorten our stride and slow down. I'm of course paraphrasing the biomechanically salient information she had. The next hour consisted of the audience practicing running slower with a shorter stride.
Despite this waste of time I read a friend's copy of the book. There's a lot of stuff in there that can be taken or left without having an impact on one's running from a mechanical or physiological perspective. What mechanically relevant information Dreyer does present is just a bunch of running economy adaptations long time / competitive runners acquire over their years of training. Only they're presented in a verbose flowery manner. If that's the bottle in which the message is best received by runners who can use that information that's great.
The rest of the stuff isn't what guys like Eric and I are into, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone who is.
SEEING THAT CYCLING HERO LANCE ARMSTRONG IS MAKING AN AMAZING COMEBACK AT NEXT YEARS TOUR DE FRANCE, SURELY THIS HAS TO BE A GOOD OMEN FOR YOUR RETURN TO WIN ANOTHER MARATHON, LETS HOPE SO!
Sky; you show a total lack of knowledge on the subject of Chirunning, If you really are a personal trainer then I feel for your clients!
Like your name suggests, you are probably nothing more than a aging hippy on acid, on a very bad trip!
Listen, flowrunner, you've worn out your welcome. I'm not interested in hearing about Chi running, and I'm sure as hell not interested in providing you a forum to make disrespectful comments to my friends.
Sky is a trained ergonomist and biomechanist. Additionally, he, like me, can smell bullshit a mile away, and Chi running is just that. Chi running purports to train people how to run with proper alignment and form, which is great. The problem I have with Chi running, is that it requires 'masters' to train you to do it 'properly' at great expense to the 'student'. That makes Chi running suspect.
Don't try to peddle this crap on my blog. If it worked for you, great. Go write your own blog about it.
By the way, Sky is younger than me, and is not an aging hippie. I'm not going to share his actual first name, but it is decidedly less interesting than 'Sky' and slightly more interesting than his nickname in college.
Sorry in advance, ya’ll especially Eric - I’d PM flowrunner if I could as I feel compelled to clarify / respond.
I took several hours out of my life to attend the seminar and read the book. If you missed my implication, I admit to doing so with skepticism. However, my skepticism is well founded based on my academic and professional experiences. I think inferring that my continued skepticism and (grossly over-) simplified view of the book’s contents demonstrates a lack of knowledge is a bit of a stretch. I’m not the only knowledgeable runner in my area with this view. Dreyer used to live in Sonoma County and he and his views were never embraced by our many recent elite high school athletes, their coaches or physical therapists and chiropractors who specialize in running injuries.
On a professional level, yes I am certified as a personal trainer. I do not practice as one in the role with which you are familiar. In addition to a lot of program management, I perform occupational injury investigations and exercise prescriptions / monitoring in the corporate world at a major technology company. There’s not a lot of room for non-science based practice in a most of what I do. However, I understand there is value in programs and methods in which I personally don’t believe and I make sure I offer a variety of yoga, martial arts, meditation / relaxation / visualization to my client’s employees. I’m also working very hard through my occupational health clinic to offer employees acupressure / acupuncture because worker’s compensation has started denying it. I don’t have to believe in something in order to recognize that it may be beneficial to someone else. If someone finds something or even everything in ChiRunning helps his or her running I think that is great and would encourage him or her to continue following that guidance – I’m all for people improving their running and being injury free by whatever means necessary so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. However, that doesn’t mean the information in it is appropriate for everyone nor does it mean that many of the concepts contained in ChiRunning can’t be conveyed or learned by other means – improved running economy with experience as I mentioned and POSE are easy examples.
On a personal level, I’m quite conservative and never so much as took one puff of a joint in my life. I also dislike hippies and the hippie lifestyle – something about their being intolerant of those who are intolerant of things strikes me as ironic and profoundly stupid. You could consider my wife a hippie – from the “nuclear free zone” of Sebastopol, CA with psychology degrees from UC Santa Cruz and University of San Francisco so lest I over-generalize and offend anyone I’ll stop there.
Regarding my name, it is my real given middle name – I had no choice in the matter of receiving nor being called “Sky.” This may then lead you to believe my parents were hippies since I was born in the 70’s. Wrong. My grandmother worked two jobs to support my mother and uncle, leaving my mom in charge of cooking, cleaning and taking care of my uncle who is six years younger than her. After one year at UC Davis (and still performing the domestic and child care duties) my parents were married. My dad’s family is from North Dakota, with 9 college degrees, 3 MD’s and 1 PhD among my grandparents, aunts and uncles. My dad is one of the MD’s who received a 4.0 GPA in four years from UC Davis before immediately going to UC Davis Medical School. My sister did the same with the exception of receiving her JD from UC Davis School of Law. No one remotely close to me has ever had time or interest in any type of hippie behavior. Yes, there is a story behind my middle name but it’s not relevant and not hippie related.
I don’t feel my being critical yet accepting of something you believe in warrants a grossly inaccurate personal attack.
Yes, good point Sky. No one should lose sight of the fact that I and Sky agree that if you *choose* Chi running for yourself, that's great.
No apology necessary, unless your name is flowrunner. Cheers!
Sky, Please can you explain to us guys what good running form is, how does one run with great running economy and at the same time not get injury problems
And once you have an answer for greggory, there are a whole bunch of physiologists, exercise scientists, coaches, and athletes who will be standing in line waiting to hear it, too.
Seriously, if Sky knows, he needs to publish it immediately.
greggory=flowrunner=ALIENLIZARD ???
Your question is a good one Greggory and a lot of people have made a lot of money presenting the same information in different contexts or with different twists for decades to address it. No one can successfully guarantee people will never get injured by following his or her advice, particularly in a high risk activity such as running. In my profession there is no tool that will score a job or task as “no risk.” Even the easiest seemingly non-task that no one in a million years would ever get injured performing must be scored as “low risk.”
This topic would have such a different tone over a keg (or long run if you prefer) instead of a keyboard and Eric’s pages...
This isn't a black & white / right & wrong issue. I never said the concepts behind ChiRunning were wrong - there's plenty of really valid and good information in there. However, there is some stuff in there I don't buy and I don’t feel Dreyer’s context is the only one in which some of his good information can be delivered. I'm also not fond of his marketing strategies but don't begrudge him making a buck by whatever means allows him to sleep at night. I know plenty of university professors making lots of money off grants (and their grad students’ work) investigating meaningless twists on prior research with “no sh*t, Sherlock” results. I’m thoroughly disgusted at how much of my tax money is going to some of the crap out there through the CDC and NSF.
Improved running economy and reduced risk of injury are not contrary concepts and in fact are closely related. Despite Dreyer’s claim that you’ll improve in both areas he understands that they are not exclusive but that both are concurrent adaptations with the biomechanical changes resulting from following his advice (or as I’ve stated, simply with experience). The primary example is stride length - many new or inexperienced runners run with a lower stride frequency than better trained runners. This means at any given running speed their stride lengths are longer. It's been scientifically shown (predominantly by Peter Cavanagh at Penn State in the 70’s, Benno Nigg at Calgary and Joe Hamill at UMass in the 80's and more recently by Irene McClay-Davis at Delaware, Joe Hamill and Reed Ferber at Calgary) that an increased stride length is metabolically more costly at any given running speed and is also associated with higher peak ground reaction forces – both in the propulsive phase but more relevant to chronic risk of injury the braking phase. Descriptive studies have shown highly trained runners have stride frequencies of 180+ while recreational runners are in the 160-180 range. This varies little with running speed meaning stride length is the primary factor affecting running speed. In this one area highly trained runners are at the same time both metabolically more economical and at less risk of injury per minute at any given running speed. I might also mention the slightly smaller range of motion at the hip and knee with a shorter stride length at any given running speed. This means the muscles are working in a smaller, more effective range of the force-velocity curve – at the end range of motion for propulsive and braking phases of the gait cycle the muscle is producing a smaller percentage of the force it’s able to making the acute risk of muscle injury smaller as well.
Individual variations in anthropometrics, muscle characteristics and metabolism prevent anyone from making too specific a statement regarding what good running form is and on a general level a lot of what Dreyer presents isn’t any better or worse than anything anyone else has presented on the topics of running economy and risk of injury – it’s just presented differently and with a lot of other stuff. Similarly, on a general level there’s no difference in training advice presented by Lydiard, Daniels, Pfitz, Higdon, Grandall, Lananna, Bowerman, Vigilante, etc. – Run hard. Run Easy. Hard runs will vary in distance, pace, repetitions, terrain. The devil’s in the details and the whole point is to pick something you believe in and that works for you. Okay, the only reason I bought into Grandall’s program is because it’s really Clay’s.
Anticipating the fallout of submitting my earlier post I’m glad I at least prefaced it by identifying the content as being my two “scents.” There’s no better reason for buying into any of the BS I post than for buying into Dreyer’s. At least he’s making some money off his. Those of you following Dreyer’s advice – continue on with my support and belief that you are a better runner for doing so. Those of you considering it – read the website. If you like what you read, buy his book. If you like the information in there, follow it and enjoy becoming a better runner. For those of you who don’t like what you read – there are other methods of achieving better economy and reduced risk of injury.
flowrunner, I just reread your first comment on this page. Since I'm rambling on at great length about irrelevant ideas I thought I might contribute something more salient.
Someone sustaining an injury isn't necessarily indicative of him or her having a biomechanical problem. Considering Eric's lack of injuries through his running career of very high volume and intensity I'd say his mechanics and approach to training, recovery and rest are actually nearing optimal. The human body and the environment in which it operates are very complex systems and controlling either or both isn't as simple as altering one factor. Not to infer this is what happened with Eric, but in fact most running injuries are a result of over use, not poor mechanics. Of course poor mechanics will lower the injury threshold but a 20 mile per week runner can usually get away with poor mechanics whereas a 120 mile per week runner usually can’t.
Having seen Eric run I can attest to the fact that his feet do in fact point forward when he runs instead of out to the side ;)
(This is actually one of the concepts presented in Dreyer's book that if done 100% successfully by someone who naturally points outward will actually INCREASE his or her risk of injury).
Regarding reaching for the bottle of pain killers, I’m guessing you don't know Eric outside of cyberspace. During his heel setback in 1997 I remember him adamantly refusing to take even an over-the-counter anti-inflammatory for fear that it would mask the pain to the extent of his being able to run and do further damage. I still don’t know if he was just talk about not wearing deodorant for fear that it promotes further stinkage when not wearing it, though…
The man who sustained the injury doesn’t even know what’s wrong yet; it’s premature and inappropriate for any of us to speculate on the cause or cure.
That was a good one about the deodorant - lucky we haven't got smelly-net.
This has been an interesting read - thanks Sky.
Regarding changing running form to prevent injuries... I don't see that as a good reason to make form adjustments. Running faster is a better reason. Injuries are more likely to be due to factors other than poor form.
I'm not an advocate of "chi" or any other method. A faster stride frequency would help most mug runners, but you don't want 180/min and 1 foot strides. Good power 'off the ground' is a useful thing to develop, so the stride is longer without 'overstriding'.
From what I have been reading on this post it seems to me like chirunning is something that could be beneficial to someone that is just starting to run and has not been already running for 10+ years. I myself have been running for 11 years and found that even after my 6 years of high school running that it was very hard to change my stride. It is something that just come naturally and will get better and better as you become more experienced. I have always thought that trying to change to much in your stride will lead to injury faster than normal.
Does this thought have any logic to it?
Thanks for the comments Sky. Very enlightening. Now, aren't you glad you dumped out that vodka and hit the books?
Richie, I have some experience with what you are talking about. Way back in high school (1990-ish), I decided (with help from a friend( that the 'perfect form' required a forefoot landing. So, I immediately went to landing on my toes, or at least midfoot, for all of my runs, for as long as I could take it. In about a month, I worked my way up to six miles at a time with a comfortable (and beautiful) new stride pattern. By the time I got to my second month, I had severe shinsplints, and by the third month I was not able to run due to severe pain in both fibulas, which was diagnosed as a stress fracture. I had to stop running for about two months, and struggled to break 4:50/10:15 during my HS senior track season due to the layoff.
Training to change your form via drills and a gradual process of tweaking over the course of years is smart. Just going out and trying to emulate a certain 'look' can be very damaging, not to mention inefficient.
Good point about not getting sucked into stutter stepping with too short a stride at 180 Hz, Ewen. Here’s some interesting math… This study (http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=1408487) is consistent with others I’ve read that the preferred speed at which people transition from walking to running is between 7.2 and 7.8 km/hr. Doing the math at the low end of that range, someone running as slow as possible (while still technically running) with a stride frequency of 180 will have a step length of 2 feet 2.4 inches to achieve the 7.2 km/hr.
And you’re absolutely right about increased power off the ground – that’s what enables us to run faster through a longer stride, all without overstriding as you stated. Of course running faster is metabolically more demanding than running slower and propulsive ground reaction forces don’t limit most people’s higher sustained running speeds as do the metabolic constraints. Arrrrgh, the laws of nature be a harsh mistress!
Richie, you’re spot on with that logic and experience. I think most of us who’ve been running from an early age are at a huge advantage because we were able to optimize movement patterns as our bodies and minds were still developing. As my pediatric motor development prof would say, we were able to optimize a movement goal (economy) within the constraints imposed by our bodies (anthropometrics among others) and our environment (gravity hard ground, etc.). Those who come to the sport later in life aren’t as effective at adapting new motor patterns to optimize economy of movement. This has been documented with many fine and gross motor tasks though I don’t know of any studies looking specifically at running, probably because distinguishing a “successful” attempt from a “poor” attempt is nearly impossible.
I’m sure you’re aware there are lots of people on the various running forums and elsewhere debating a heel, midfoot and forefoot strikes (amongst other misguided attempts to attain “optimal” mechanics). Eric’s HS experiment is a great example of what usually happens – putting the cart before the horse. For most people optimal stride length is best identified by the ability to maintain running velocity while minimizing the braking component of the GRF. This essentially means the foot (base of support) should land almost directly beneath the runner’s center of mass. This is in a 2D sagittal plane (side view) – I won’t get into lateral oscillations in the frontal plane… And guess what happens when you land almost directly beneath your center of mass? You have a nearly perfect mid-foot strike in most cases. A forefoot strike in such a situation would cause excessive vertical oscillation and a heel strike would require excessive dorsiflexion at touchdown. Pay attention to the elites that get profiled in Runner’s World, Running Times, etc. compared to non-elites or models pretending to be runners in ads and other magazines. You’ll never see an elite with a fully extended knee or dorsiflexed ankle with their foot anywhere near the ground like you will with the non-runners. Road Runner Sports’ catalog is riddled with the non-elite folks (as if you couldn’t tell from their bodies, anyway. Fit, yes. Runners, no.)
Sky, I would have to disagree with this part of your statement:
Of course running faster is metabolically more demanding than running slower
At a certain point depending on the individual the elasticity of the tendons and muscles (and bone) reach a point of perfect rebound off the surface they are running on (harder surface quicker rebound, softer surface slower rebound hence tuned tracks (ie MIT versions)) this can account for a huge percentage (35% in some Kenyans tested) of the energy needed at a given pace. Some runners have their energy demand drop once they get to a certain speed. As you point out all of these thing are factors in an "individuals" form. Ask Eric for a copy of the article on Salazar vs Benoit. Watching them both race in the area she "looked" far smoother than he did but under testing he was far more efficient. Efficiency is not observable by the eye.
This is the article you are talking about?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/fashion/11Best.html
I have always been under the impression that efficiency and 'proper' running form are learned best by one activity... running.
Awesome read SKY,very interesting.
Came across coach TONY BENSON'S website yesterday and found some videos of runners before and after correct form was applied. check it out at http://www.benson.com.au/default.asp?contentID=627
Hi Mystery Coach! By metabolically more demanding I’m referring to the steady increase in whole-body oxygen consumption (VO2) that occurs with progressive exercise intensity up to VO2 Max, or more specifically the steady increase in whole-body ATP turnover with progressive exercise intensity up to 100% of any one individual’s exercise capacity with all other factors including running surface remaining the same. That relationship spans all exercise modalities that have been scientifically tested. The relationship is rarely linear and the curve varies between individuals and may change for any one individual if one or more factors such as running surface are changed. But the positive relationship is universal.
The variations between the active and passive characteristics of individuals’ connective tissue, anthropometric variables such as muscle mass distribution about a segment and moment arms created by muscle insertions as well as their interaction with running surfaces of varying coefficients of restitution will affect the shape of the VO2-Exercise Intensity curve differently for different people which is why runner A may be less economical than runner B at a particular relative or absolute intensity but more economical at a higher (or lower) intensity. However, I can’t imagine anyone would ever be able to show (because I don’t see how it’s physiologically possible) that energy expenditure for any one runner would decrease at a higher running intensity, keeping external forces such as slope, air resistance, etc. constant. Keeping all other variables controlled, for a faster running speed you have to do more work with the same machinery. That requires you to burn more fuel per unit time. Becoming more economical at higher intensities (a flattening of the VO2-Exercise Intensity curve with increasing intensity) is indeed a characteristic of many successful runners, though. For example going from X% VO2 Max to X+5% VO2 Max may cost Y more ATPs but going from X+5% VO2 Max to X+10% VO2 Max may cost far less than an additional Y ATPs… but it still costs more = metabolically more demanding. I love learning new things so if you have one, I’d love any type of reference for your statement:
“Some runners have their energy demand drop once they get to a certain speed.”
By “perfect rebound” with the tuned track surfaces I assume you mean “optimal” (yeah, I know that’s splitting hairs!) – Perfect rebound would mean a coefficient of restitution of 1.0 between the runner and the track which is not possible whereas optimal rebound in the context of maximizing distance event performance would mean the lowest metabolic cost at a particular range of running speeds. I don’t know the context of 35% of the energy needed for some Kenyans coming from the track (I’d love a reference if you remember where you read that) – but in theory the hardest surface possible would provide the best coeffecient of restitution and therefore the most efficient return of energy to the runner. However, that energy must be attenuated through the body and contributes greatly to fatigue which would be counterproductive. The track built in Atlanta for the ’96 games was very hard, with a high coefficient which was a huge advantage to the sprinters who aren’t as susceptible to fatigue as distance runners. Many of the European tracks on which so many fast 5k’s and 10k’s have been run, while still relatively hard, have a smaller coefficient of restitution that Atlanta’s.
I think I’m wasting a lot of words on concepts we both have a pretty good grasp of and are in agreement on. Good thing Mad Dog’s too busy to weigh in here and set us all straight.
Patrick, thanks for that link – that’s truly amazing about Radcliff and Armstrong and their economy improvements. I’m sure Eric appreciates your handling that as well since he must be swamped uploading and debugging Sundog Running Forum v1.0. Sorry to make your blog the beta, man. Who would have thought being out of commission temporarily would spark such interest in your running blog?
Still sending positive thoughts for your fast and complete recovery through these internets here.
RFWTAL - thanks for the link; it's been a while since I checked out Benson's schtick. I'll check it out.
"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
"WAIT 'TIL I GET GOING! Now where was I...?"
"Australia."
Thanks for the questions and answers, everyone! Very nice exchange of ideas here. I'll have to link this post up on the front page permanently so people can find it if they want.
A quick note on the efficiency numbers...they may not be correct, at least for Armstrong. I don't know or care enough to spend $16 to read the technical details, but it sounds like the writer of the study was using some courtroom math.
Sky, don't apologize. I think the comments are great! Don't hesitate to add value to my blog whenever you like.
OK, now I am completely confused. Does Time still equal Money?
Seriously though, some good reading. And all because of Chi running. See, it does have value!
A good explanation of the elasticity of muscles can be found in "Lore of Running" (4th Edition) pages 51-53.
(If you do not have the book it can be found online ( http://books.google.com/books?id=wAa9qq9kbncC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=muscle+elastisity+in+running&source=web&ots=cwi6AM0lhy&sig=qki2F56SbXGNtzUIhMHOF0Y3yOE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result )
When I went back and reread it I had forgotten that leg turn over increases leg stiffness which in turn increases the stored energy in the tendon/muscle.
One other point that is mentioned in the book is that the greatest gain in leg stiffness occurs from the increase stiffness of the ankles. (Something that Lydiard argued for just by observing runners (think hill phase, ankle drills)
As soon as I find the article of the non linear cost of running (variations in stored muscle/energy) I'll send it on.
I love that my blog is most active at 4:30 in the morning.
Have a good day everyone!
Thanks for mentioning Lore of Running, Myster Coach. That and Martin & Coe's (RIP) Better Training for Distance Runners are books I've been meaning to pick up for years. Tons of great practical information in them.
It's amazing how spot on that Lydiard guy was considering it took science 10, 20 even 30 years to validate what he figured out on his own.
Doesn't surprise me about Coyle's research on Armstrong. It's funny how Eric named names for me after my mini-rant on college profs' research... At least Eddie C had the cajones to admit he screwed up this time. Questionable research methods including courtroom math which nonetheless make big money was was one of the many reasons I left Texas. But either way, it looks like running economy may improve substantially with continued training for some people regardless of previous fitness level. I'd love to see more (better) research on the topic.
And thanks for the Princess Bride pull! Nice wakeup laugh - you summed up quite well how I feel making these ridiculously long posts. Since we don't have a run over which to chat, that'll have to do.
D'oh! Sorry for the typo Mystery Coach.
Eric, it's not 4.30 in the morning. It's 10.50 at night ;)
Regarding 'footstrike'... there was some good super slow motion footage from both the Beijing marathons - not sure if you got it. Anyway, it shows some runners with the heel making contact with the ground first, some with the mid-foot.
I'm thinking that it doesn't matter, providing (as Sky says) the foot is landing under the centre of gravity.
I'm also thinking that adjustments in form are more useful if taught to a young (receptive) athlete. I've seen young middle distance runners run faster after changing (improving) their form. I'm unsure if this means they'd eventually be faster marathoners.
Here is a LR.com (almost as popular in the running world as this blog) thread about armstrong with a different article... I was going to post that last night but couldn't come across the thread...
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2668858
Hey Pat, this is Chaaaad. Thanks for the link, I reallllly appreciate it.
hahaha
Boy, nothing like a nice morning run to dust off a long day's cranial dust get some O2 to the thinkin' muscle.
What I typed myself in circles trying to say was that I interpreted Mystery Coach's post as illustrating that at faster running speeds any runner may expend less energy per unit of work done than at lower running speeds which is absolutely correct and not in conflict with with the fact that higher running speeds require more work with requires more metabolic cost however you want to measure it - %VO2 Max, ATP turnover rate, calories per minute...
hang in there Eric, I'm thinking of you.
Hey Eric, Karna's friend Jill. Sorry to hear about the injury. Nice thread out of it. But jeez, looks like I need to elevate the level of conversation on my long runs. I think our last debate was about the one guy we run with who recently admitted he only washes his running shorts once a week. (No real debate, mostly just blanket disbelief mingled with horror.) Layoffs suck. Forget talk of the opportunity to take a break and strengthen in other areas. Or as I always think of it-The shitty bitter pill of self improvement. I'm trying to run through some weird tweaky calf thing that came to a head that horrible Cat Fish Days run. Just need to make it to the start line in Chicago this year. Seems like a must after last year's nerve damage sideline. All this rambling just to say HANG IN THERE.
You're still at the top of my bloglines.
Hope things have improved and hope you and the family are well.
Post a Comment