Why the Kenyans are so fast (Read 692 times)

GC100k


    I guess the fossil record shows that people ran incorrectly in prehistoric times, because his central thesis is that no one can run correctly unless he teaches them.  I'm not sure who taught T-Rex or ostriches how to run.

     

    It can't be that people ran with their feet in-line, because that's how the vast majority of people naturally run when they run fast.  When I was a running beginner 20 years ago, my running friend told me to try to run so each foot lands on the same line.  Also, since I was heavy, I started with a very non-bouncy, almost speed-walking method.  So those things cannot be what SJ proposes, because they are not new or radical.

     

    But again, I'm an idiot, so what do I know?

      What is the link between efficiency and speed? Why does the fastest technique over a distance also need to be the most efficient? I dont see how the fact that kenyan women can carry loads with less energy expenditure (assuming that is true) has anything to do with marathon training.

       

      In a real world, i spend less energy walking 100m than sprinting 100m even though theoretically energy expended should be the same. Doesnt mean i am going to be walking a marathon??

      I dont sweat. I ooze liquid awesome.


      Feeling the growl again

          So those things cannot be what SJ proposes, because they are not new or radical.

         

         

         

        You are operating on the hypothesis that a rational thought process is at play and then trying to find a way to rationalize how all this fits together.

         

        Occam's razor.

        "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

         

        I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

         

        GC100k


           

          You are operating on the hypothesis that a rational thought process is at play and then trying to find a way to rationalize how all this fits together.

           

          Occam's razor.

           

          I keep saying I'm done with SJ but he keeps drawing me back in.  Now prehistoric footprints prove he's right.  Reluctantly I've come to realize that his radical earth-shattering theory is that running/walking on a straight line and using less bounce is more efficient.  That's it.  Oh and maybe less arm swing.  That's all there is.  All the frass about T-Rex and ostriches is just dressing.  I was hoping he had some wild ideas, but he just has wild ways of interacting with people.

           

          And he may have something, but it's nothing new or original.  Some years back during a marathon broadcast, they had a guy on there who was analyzing everyone's form and pointing out that the runners who bounced more were going to wear out sooner than those who didn't bounce.  I mean he kept saying this over and over and over (anyone else remember this?).  In the end I don't think there was any correlation, but it's a reasonable theory.

           

          I've come to believe that SJ just isn't very smart.  Not a weird genius, just weird.  He doesn't comprehend much and in spite of his throwing scientific words around, he has very fundamental misunderstanding about how science works.  Someone said this better in another thread, but I forget how they said it exactly.  I've been around people who were brilliant but not formally trained.  SJ isn't one of them.  Watching his videos, like the one of his feet around a pyramid, convinced me it's mostly nonsense.

           

          When I started my first engineering faculty job, a faculty colleague told me "you have to understand, the smartest guy in the department doesn't have a college degree".  He was right.  Our technician, the guy who fixed equipment and kept paper in the printers, was brilliant.  He ended up forming a very successful research company with one of the professors.  He could talk the theory as well as the applications.  But he produced actual results, published papers, and had patents.  He was always trying to learn, not just tell everyone how right he was.

           

          So I'm almost out.  I am fascinated by this guy.  I haven't been this geeky about someone since Kip Litton.  I've probably been too hard on Robert (SJ), but I actually have a tender heart for him.  He just makes it hard to interact politely with him.

          JimR


             

            prehistoric footprints.

             

            The analysis in question originally used calculations based on runners and determined that the footprints represented ancient runners at a decent, but not particularly spectacular. pace, about 5 minutes/mile, over a short sprint.  Those results didn't attract much attention so it was revisited and used calculations based on walkers instead of runners and came up with Usain Bolt like paces...simply because the only way to walk with such a stride length you would need to be not only moving very fast but also have an insanely long leg length.

               

              Given that I have close to 1000 clinical studies bookmarked, give me a link to any word which you've written, and I'll gladly give you a list of studies which prove you're an idiot.

               

                Hmm.  Reminds me of a political debate, or a Religious debate, or a Global Warming debate, or any debate.  Endless.  For every clinical study you have that proves someone else "an Idiot" as you say, the other side can provide opposing studies to say the same about your perspective.   --- Give me any theory and I can provide you 1,000 links and/or statistics that either support, or go against that assertion.  Either side.  You have 1000 links. Big deal.  Born-again Christians have 1000 links that 'undeniably support' the Noah's ark events.  Doesn't make it 100% undeniably true.  Should I call some one an idiot that believes it?  Should they call me an idiot because I do not?

               

                And that is thethe main point you miss.  That is the bigger point.  Belittling all others in argument never 'wins' an argument, and never brings anyone to your line of thinking.  You call folks "idiots" and then expect them to say what?  "You are correct, thank you for enlightening me?!"

              .

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

              zonykel


                It's called "confirmation bias". But as you point out, that does not make every issue a 50-50 proposition.

                 

                 

                  Hmm.  Reminds me of a political debate, or a Religious debate, or a Global Warming debate, or any debate.  Endless.  For every clinical study you have that proves someone else "an Idiot" as you say, the other side can provide opposing studies to say the same about your perspective.   --- Give me any theory and I can provide you 1,000 links and/or statistics that either support, or go against that assertion.  Either side.  You have 1000 links. Big deal.  Born-again Christians have 1000 links that 'undeniably support' the Noah's ark events.  Doesn't make it 100% undeniably true.  Should I call some one an idiot that believes it?  Should they call me an idiot because I do not?

                 

                  And that is thethe main point you miss.  That is the bigger point.  Belittling all others in argument never 'wins' an argument, and never brings anyone to your line of thinking.  You call folks "idiots" and then expect them to say what?  "You are correct, thank you for enlightening me?!"

                .

                sport jester


                Biomimeticist

                   

                  simply because the only way to walk with such a stride length you would need to be not only moving very fast but also have an insanely long leg length.

                  If leg length is your answer to the question, then sadly you're wrong. Although I'll give you points for creative ineptness...

                  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

                     

                      Hmm.  Reminds me of a political debate, or a Religious debate, or a Global Warming debate, or any debate.  Endless.  For every clinical study you have that proves someone else "an Idiot" as you say, the other side can provide opposing studies to say the same about your perspective.   --- Give me any theory and I can provide you 1,000 links and/or statistics that either support, or go against that assertion.  Either side.  You have 1000 links. Big deal.  Born-again Christians have 1000 links that 'undeniably support' the Noah's ark events.  Doesn't make it 100% undeniably true.  Should I call some one an idiot that believes it?  Should they call me an idiot because I do not?

                     

                      And that is thethe main point you miss.  That is the bigger point.  Belittling all others in argument never 'wins' an argument, and never brings anyone to your line of thinking.  You call folks "idiots" and then expect them to say what?  "You are correct, thank you for enlightening me?!"

                    .

                    It isn't any religious debate; either you can carry 20% of your bodyweight with no increase in energy expenditure or you can't.

                    If you can't reproduce such ability, then you're a pathetically inefficient runner period.

                     

                    If you can't explain how they do it, then you know nothing about how humans run.

                     

                    Believing in the "running universe", isn't the same thing as having a real education...

                     

                    And if you think reading any published running magazine will teach you how to run faster, then your ignorance is beyond comprehension.

                    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

                      What is the link between efficiency and speed? Why does the fastest technique over a distance also need to be the most efficient? I dont see how the fact that kenyan women can carry loads with less energy expenditure (assuming that is true) has anything to do with marathon training.

                       

                      In a real world, i spend less energy walking 100m than sprinting 100m even though theoretically energy expended should be the same. Doesnt mean i am going to be walking a marathon??

                       

                      I've said it before; you can only run as fast as your technique will let you. It isn't a question of how much energy you expend to run, but how much energy you waste to run.

                       

                      Walking and running do not burn the same amount of calories at identical speeds, simply because of the impact forces are greater running than walking. With walking you land with an impact force of twice one's bodyweight (if you're an efficient walker), while running you land with an impact force of minimum four times one's bodyweight.

                       

                      In no way are the two means of locomotion identical in energy expenditure. If you truly want to be a faster runner, then you'll have to update your educational perspective.

                      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


                      Prince of Fatness

                        you're a pathetically inefficient runner period.

                         

                        you know nothing about how humans run.

                         

                        your ignorance is beyond comprehension.

                         

                        You need a hug.

                        Semi-back-at-it. 

                        sport jester


                        Biomimeticist

                           

                          You need a hug.

                           

                          you need far more than that...

                          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

                            This has been posted before, but bears repeating:  Wikipedia - Crank.

                             

                            1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
                            2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
                            3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
                            4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

                            I don't have a thousand bookmarks to my credentials, but I think this is a good one.

                              In addition, many cranks:

                              1. seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
                              2. stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
                              3. compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus, implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility,
                              4. claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
                              5. appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.

                               

                              Quote from SJ in the Why Did I Stop Getting Better thread:

                               

                              If he would have let me train his athletes and I would have failed to improve their speed by 20% I would fully have walked away and not done anything about it. He's as open to new ideas as the Catholic church was to admitting the sun was the center of the universe (since they didn't apologize for Galileo's writings in 1632 until 1992...).


                              Prince of Fatness

                                you need far more than that...

                                 

                                No, I'm fine and happy.  You are the one throwing all of the personal insults, not me.

                                 

                                But anyway, have a nice weekend,.

                                Semi-back-at-it.