Why the Kenyans are so fast (Read 693 times)

sport jester


Biomimeticist

    The hypothesis has been implied in this thread that the Kenyans run faster than non-Kenyans in the marathon because they run more inline.

     

    1. Are the Kenyans faster? Or is it just specific runners who are fast?

     

    2. Do the faster runners in fact have a more inline stride?

     

    3. If they have a more inline stride, do they have a genetic predisposition toward being more efficient with such a stride?

     

    We are not even sure of #2 yet. Although it is possible the top runners in the marathon are slim hipped, and might have a more inline stride. But even if so, that wouldn't mean others would become faster by making their own stride more inline. It is possible that becoming too inline would be less efficient, and slower, for running. Efficient stride would likely vary by body type.

     

    Non of the assertions regarding Kenyan women basket carrying efficiency rates, Navy Seal training techniques, nor Nike shoe lab involvement are taken as a given. But nonetheless, the hypothesis of inline running being a key factor in marathon top times is interesting, and can be tested to see if there is an association.

    Well for starters, I'll give you one of my public Navy SEAL references, Stew Smith, who introduces his readers to what I teach for its load bearing applications.

     

    On paper, the idea of running inline doesn't seem logical as an improvement, and I'll give you that. But to do accomplish it properly requires learning a whole new process to run. You have to learn how to gallop.

     

    Stew's article gives the introduction, and the references to my youtube channel show what it looks like from a side as well as frontal view.

     

    You can start there and I'll gladly answer questions.

    http://www.military.com/military-fitness/running/evolution-of-learning-how-to-run-distance

     

    Start with learning to walk comfortably and you can build in speed from there...

    Experts said the world is flat

    Experts said that man would never fly

    Experts said we'd never go to the moon

     

    Name me one of those "experts"...

     

    History never remembers the name of experts; just the innovators who had the guts to challenge and prove the "experts" wrong

    sport jester


    Biomimeticist

      I don't have a PhD but I have a BS in Aerospace Engineering and I want to debate science. 

       

      No problem. Oh, and as an Aerospace engineer, you of all people should get why running inline is more efficient. Especially since the first plane to circumnavigate the planet on one tank of gas was a twin engine aircraft, with centerline thrust based on inline placement of its engines instead of parallel placement under the wings...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Voyager

       

      Even one of the fastest piston aircraft of WWII was the Dornier 335 Arrow. Twin engine aircraft with centerline thrust as well.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_335

       

      If you're such the brilliant engineer, then you tell me why its used in aircraft design if its so inefficient?????

      Experts said the world is flat

      Experts said that man would never fly

      Experts said we'd never go to the moon

       

      Name me one of those "experts"...

       

      History never remembers the name of experts; just the innovators who had the guts to challenge and prove the "experts" wrong

         

        No problem. Oh, and as an Aerospace engineer, you of all people should get why running inline is more efficient. Especially since the first plane to circumnavigate the planet on one tank of gas was a twin engine aircraft, with centerline thrust based on inline placement of its engines instead of parallel placement under the wings...

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Voyager

         

        Even one of the fastest piston aircraft of WWII was the Dornier 335 Arrow. Twin engine aircraft with centerline thrust as well.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_335

         

        If you're such the brilliant engineer, then you tell me why its used in aircraft design if its so inefficient?????

         

             --- I just get the feeling this guy is pulling folks' chains as a joke, but on a deeper, less immediately obvious level.   IE.  I mean seriously, someone with that much book knowledge on various subjects seriously wants to compare how planes with centerline thrust vice parallel placement of engines is an "apples to apples" comparison with inline running?   And above that, in order to run faster, you must first learn how to "gallop"..   For Fvcks sake!  He's just pulling chains folks!   Disguising it just well enough that it almost seems like he is being serious in his arguments....

        .

        The Plan '15 →   ///    "Run Hard, Live Easy."   ∞

        Lane


          No problem. Oh, and as an Aerospace engineer, you of all people should get why running inline is more efficient. Especially since the first plane to circumnavigate the planet on one tank of gas was a twin engine aircraft, with centerline thrust based on inline placement of its engines instead of parallel placement under the wings...

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Voyager

           

          Even one of the fastest piston aircraft of WWII was the Dornier 335 Arrow. Twin engine aircraft with centerline thrust as well.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_335

           

          If you're such the brilliant engineer, then you tell me why its used in aircraft design if its so inefficient?????

           

          I didn't say I was brilliant before, I was just pointing out some geometric/basic physical flaws with the idea that a human-sized tiger beetle could run 200MPH.  In my opinion, more of a common sense kind of thing.  I also haven't commented on running inline; it may very well be more efficient than whatever the alternative is, though comparing human beings to airplanes isn't the best way of convincing me (it's kind of like the tiger beetle scaling thing... too many other differences to be a fair comparison).

           

          Putting engines in line is efficient (under certain circumstances) because it reduces the drag penalty - that was noted in the article on the bomber.  You don't see it nowadays in aircraft with multiple engines because most aircraft are powered by jet engines which have some very hot exhaust that usually goes straight back and it also cuts down on the cargo space in the fuselage.

           

          Why doesn't this apply to people?  Because the conventional runner is not powered by aircraft engine, though I submit that they would be significantly faster if this was the case.  Running inline doesn't reduce your surface area or your cross-sectional area so I don't think it would help much in terms of drag reduction.  Also, drag isn't as bad for people as for airplanes because we travel much more slowly (see my previous notes on drag forces being roughly proportional to velocity).

           

          A more recent design, the Rutan Boomerang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Boomerang) has a completely asymmetric design, allowing it to go further/faster than similar aircraft.  As it is a more recent design, it reflects significantly more learning than the WWII bomber.  Perhaps humans could run faster by applying uneven amounts of force with each leg (one of the boomerang's engines has 10 more horsepower than the other).  I haven't given much thought to this before, but you are the running expert and seem to be fairly thorough, so I would like to hear your thoughts on the increased running efficiency afforded by asymmetric running as contrasted with inline and parallel running styles.

          bhearn


            Why doesn't this apply to people?  Because the conventional runner is not powered by aircraft engine, though I submit that they would be significantly faster if this was the case.

             

            Nice. Maybe even more than 20% faster!

            GC100k


              Nice. Maybe even more than 20% faster!

               

              I found a podcast of SJ on a radio show as a video game expert who has been playing video games since the 1960s.  The hosts say "when you called us...", meaning SJ talked himself on there, not that they sought him out.  Anyway, you can imagine how it went - all parents and all experts who disagree with him are stupid...  The best part was that military studies have proven that video game players are all better at something.  Wanna guess how much better?

              GC100k


                btw, some of the best summaries of the SJ experience are in the comments of an "article" he wrote.  Some of the comments capture it much better than I have:

                 

                being human

                 

                link has probably been posted earlier in this thread, but worth a look.  If you've read any of SJ's posts, you don't need to read the "article", just read the comments.

                AmoresPerros


                Options,Account, Forums

                  btw, some of the best summaries of the SJ experience are in the comments of an "article" he wrote.  Some of the comments capture it much better than I have:

                   

                  being human

                   

                  link has probably been posted earlier in this thread, but worth a look.  If you've read any of SJ's posts, you don't need to read the "article", just read the comments.

                   

                  I'm pretty sure the 6 ways of running are:
                  Running forward
                  Running backward
                  Running sideways
                  Running the other sideways
                  Running from articles of this nature
                  Running to the gym

                  It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

                    btw, some of the best summaries of the SJ experience are in the comments of an "article" he wrote.  Some of the comments capture it much better than I have:

                     

                    being human

                     

                    link has probably been posted earlier in this thread, but worth a look.  If you've read any of SJ's posts, you don't need to read the "article", just read the comments.

                     

                    Ok, I rescind what I said above about chain-pulling, SJ is actually serious.  -- I read the comments in the article you linked and you are right:  Those comments say it all. :-)  .  I liked this particular one myself that someone left in response to his "work"...

                     

                    """"For anybody not wanting to waste 10 minutes, I’ll recap.

                    “I am smart, everybody else is stupid. I know a lot of secrets, and nobody else knows them. There are 6 running styles you don’t know about and I won’t tell you what they are. You are dumb, I am smart. Usain Bolt = Slow, African Pigmees = Fast. I am still smart. Americans = stupid, Africans = too poor for cement, thus good runners. Did I mention how smart I am and stupid everybody else is? Unbacked scientific claims. Let our travels begin…….”""""

                    The Plan '15 →   ///    "Run Hard, Live Easy."   ∞

                    Kittyface


                    Tragic hip

                      lol at running the other sideways

                      sport jester


                      Biomimeticist

                        Putting engines in line is efficient (under certain circumstances) because it reduces the drag penalty.

                         

                        Why doesn't this apply to people?  Because the conventional runner is not powered by aircraft engine, Running inline doesn't reduce your surface area or your cross-sectional area so I don't think it would help much in terms of drag reduction.

                         

                         

                        You forgot the relationship of the aircraft with the pilot; they need no specialized training in handling as with a conventional twin engine pilot certificate.

                         

                        Its not an issue of drag, its an issue of thrust. If one engine fails in a conventional twin engine aircraft, the plane will spin out of control unless the pilot applies rudder force to steer the plane in the opposite direction of which engine failed to maintain directional stability.

                         

                        Inline placement of two engines doesn't have that problem which makes them much easier and therefore safer to fly. If one engine fails (or get shot out as in the 335 Arrow) the plane doesn't spin as a conventional under the wings twin engine aircraft would. With an inline engine placement, there's no rotational torque of the fuselage when an engine quits.

                         

                        As to your no increased drag, its not an aerodynamic one, but a biomechanic one.

                         

                        The human connection is no different. The wider in stance your leg's push off, no different than a conventional airplane, the greater amount of rotational torque is applied to the hips based on that variable. A counter balance through arm swing no different than a plane's rudder application being necessary to maintain forward direction in an engine quits.

                         

                        To me that's how I see humans, as if trying to fly a conventional airplane with each engine quitting after the foot leaves the ground. The body spins for the exact same reason a conventional twin aircraft would fly if its engines alternated in power generation as well. How well you manage those torque forces is what defines your efficiencies as a runner.

                         

                        How is that not increased drag in the body and thus lower running speed a natural byproduct of that torque load.

                         

                        The science is easy, the closer the forward thrust of the athlete is to one's natural centerline, the less energy in counterbalance drag to the rotational torque of the hips through wasted upper body rotation initiated by arm swing to control it.

                         

                        Why is that a hard idea to understand?

                         

                        Far more important however, its where humans differ from airplanes which solves a unique athletic problem.

                         

                        An inline placement of twin engines, is also the only aircraft design whereas they can be of different power output abilities without creating rotational torque differences on the plane. Your legs are no different. You're naturally stronger on one side of your body than the other (hence unequal strength engines),  which competent trainers refer to as physical symmetry of the body. Planes have equal engine thrust symmetry. Humans don't.

                         

                        Which is why the parallel leg swing of running in humans is so inefficient. The greater asymmetrical strength differential in the athlete the more upper body forces are required to keep the hips stable in balance no different than in a plane's counterbalance rudder forces.

                         

                        The inline placement of two engines has another human connection metaphor, that because of that strength differential,  Burt Rutan used it for the Voyager. His plane was designed around two engines for take off, and then to shut down its front one down upon reaching cruising altitude and use the smaller rear engine for maximum fuel economy to maintain flight.

                         

                        The inline design allowed the front engine for emergency maneuvering purposes only once it was airborne. That's how Rutan minimized the fuel burn rate at a level low enough to circumnavigate the globe on one tank. That idea contrasts with special note given the previous distance record holder was an eight engine B-52.

                         

                        What you overlook, is that humans don't have two legs with identical thrust output either. While conventional twin engine aircraft uses two copies of the same engines producing identical power and thrust, we as humans don't have that luxury. Our engines, each leg of course, is of different strength capacities. In aircraft metaphor, we run with twin leg engines whereas only one is providing thrust at a time and the rotational hip torque alters with each burst of speed upon ground contact no different than a conventional twin engine aircraft would spin experienced by one of them to quit.

                         

                        Aside from almost complete elimination of counterbalance arm swing energy waste, all high speed running athletes utilize the inline thrust balance principles for the same reason airplanes do. Its optimum solution to power differential in the athlete regardless to how many legs they have.

                         

                        Ancient humans used it, its what a shoe based running technique has completely robbed you of.

                         

                        That's what I learned in training race horses; that they don't have two unequal strength legs, but four of them. The skill of teaching them to race is how to properly synchronize in fluidity of gait utilizing four unequal strength limbs.

                         

                        Like the Voyager and 335, the human inline landing allows for different strength legs to physically synchronize in creating optimum running speed, simply because the thrust of either leg, being directly under the body, is identical in directional torque (there is none), regardless to its strength, therefore allowing for a much more stable hip, no different than to centerline thrust aircraft.

                         

                        Why is that such hard science to understand?

                         

                        It works for horses, cheetahs, T-Rexes, and even the aborigines. Why wouldn't the engineering science of centerline thrust not have advantages for anyone else?

                         

                         

                         

                         

                        Humans are no different.

                        Experts said the world is flat

                        Experts said that man would never fly

                        Experts said we'd never go to the moon

                         

                        Name me one of those "experts"...

                         

                        History never remembers the name of experts; just the innovators who had the guts to challenge and prove the "experts" wrong

                          Look at this video, where the runner has a natural somewhat inline stride.

                           

                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG-xLi2m5Rc

                           

                          The coach at this video then teaches the runner to widen his stride so it is less inline.

                           

                          Will the runner become more efficient and have faster times by widening the stride?  Should the runner instead keep the natural somewhat inline stride?  Or should the runner work at developing an even more completely catlike Kenyan basket lady inline stride?

                           

                          Without having any particular expertise in the research question, it appears to me that the widened stride introduces extra up and down movement on the part of the hips.  While the coach says he is trying to make it so more of the movements are going forward, to me it looks like he has merely taken the slight side to side movement of the hips, and turned it into up and down movement.

                           

                          Each stride of the new gait would seem to require more body movement of the runner, in total, to keep in balance with the new wider gait.  When the runner was more inline, before any adjustments, I would think the runner had already naturally reduced the movements to be efficient.

                           

                          As to going even more inline, I would think that might also introduce more side to side movement than is optimal.  Personally, my guess is going completely inline, just for the sake of doing it, wouldn't be efficient, either.  Instead, I would think each runner would have to find the stride that best and most efficiently fits his/her body.  Isn't that what running a lot of miles teaches us, naturally?

                           

                          So, are the Kenyans more inline with their stride than other runners?

                           

                          As to the coach's efforts in the video, I do not know if it will make the runner faster or not.  For all I know, it may help the runner.  So these comments are not for or against those efforts.  I am merely describing how they look to my own eye, as they relate to the question of running with a more inline stride.  The efficiency is probably best measured by the clock, and to that the coach may well have given the right suggestions to the runner.


                          Ostrich runner

                            This is groundbreaking news...apparently something called a "vector" was just discovered, and it's being applied to mechanics. Earth shattering! Meanwhile, Navy SEALs and a football team have tracked the breakthrough to a man suffering organic brain dysfunction in a group home in Portland.

                            http://www.runningahead.com/groups/Indy/forum

                            sport jester


                            Biomimeticist

                                 The best part was that military studies have proven that video game players are all better at something.  Wanna guess how much better?

                              I think its pretty funny that people call me narcissistic, when statements such as the above highlight how myopic most distance runners are in thinking the training world revolves around them...

                               

                              http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=57695

                               

                              So let me get this straight; that a 20% improvement in visual cognition skills is possible while a 20% improvement in running speed is what I claim to teach, and there not be a connection????

                               

                              How can anyone be a 20% quicker athlete physically, if they don't have a brain that can think 20% faster to control it.

                               

                              I find that an absurd reaction only when science also proves that not only are the aborigines faster than Usain Bolt on foot, but they also had and still have 400% better eyesight skills than you do.

                              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7457480

                               

                              Just because you've never seen an eye chart in a gym, doesn't mean visual perception skills aren't important to athletes. Which his why you mock such reality, while I study it. Its one of the reasons I have respect by military trainers and have been published for that research and application.

                               

                              Especially since science says such mocking proves ignorance rather than superiority.

                              http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/04/soccer-players-show-enhanced-thinking-abilities/?hpt=hp_bn12

                              http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034731

                               

                              Being an athlete isn't simply how fast one can run, but how quickly they can figure out the need to run fast.

                              Experts said the world is flat

                              Experts said that man would never fly

                              Experts said we'd never go to the moon

                               

                              Name me one of those "experts"...

                               

                              History never remembers the name of experts; just the innovators who had the guts to challenge and prove the "experts" wrong


                              Ostrich runner

                                There is a clear way forward here. SJ, just go live among the Aborigines for a decade.

                                http://www.runningahead.com/groups/Indy/forum