Forums >General Running>So where have I heard this before???
So if I wrap a Soldier wearing 135lbs of equipment and record a heart rate at 7% incline on a treadmill moving as I teach it, how does it measure a lower beat per minute rate than walking normally at 0% incline. How do you do more work for less energy? Oh, and by the way if you want to discuss track running, I'll ask you this: Why are track racing events held in counter clockwise rotation and not clockwise? Because if you're an orthopedic surgeon attending one of my classes, I'd ask you to elaborate your answer and explain how it applies to preventing ACL tears? Not to mention this study I use... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11053354
So if I wrap a Soldier wearing 135lbs of equipment and record a heart rate at 7% incline on a treadmill moving as I teach it, how does it measure a lower beat per minute rate than walking normally at 0% incline. How do you do more work for less energy?
Oh, and by the way if you want to discuss track running, I'll ask you this: Why are track racing events held in counter clockwise rotation and not clockwise?
Because if you're an orthopedic surgeon attending one of my classes, I'd ask you to elaborate your answer and explain how it applies to preventing ACL tears?
Not to mention this study I use...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11053354
This is a great study. Thank you for sharing this. Once again in order to help I have the unabridged version of this new study that you have referenced which if you read through it solidifies my assessment on your view of increasing ground contact time for faster running:
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.5.1991
You can see that according to the study you use a shorter ground contact time is linear to top speed performance increases.
If you are having trouble understanding try not to confuse greater applied force into the ground with ground contact time. These are two different things. Also remember that power has a speed component. You should also understand Newton's third law and it's relation to force applied into the ground and also the relationship with elastic energy. I think if you put this all together you might be able to understand what is going on.
What velocity is "moving as I teach it?" Just curious? And, what velocity is, "walking normally? Show me your published study?
I know this might seem harsh but I am really trying to help you understand. I know these concepts can be difficult to grasp.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305730990_The_Reason_Why_Do_Athletes_Run_Around_the_Track_Counter-_Clockwise
This is correct. There are a lot of different reasons. Most are historically for the spectators and not set up to benefit athletes. There are more athletes that are right leg dominant so it tends to favor them.
As far as ACL injuries, very rare in track. Most often these injuries are the result of traumatic events in other sports like soccer and football. I have never had an athlete with an ACL tear, although I am aware that it can happen in particular with hurdles and field events. Otherwise with proper hip strengthening exercises it is almost completely avoidable.
Stotan Disciple
Otter and Sport Jester thank you both, This is all interesting.
More force, shorter ground contact time. Increase elastic energy.
I have the elastic energy down and continuing to build, form remains a work in progress.
The whole TREX thing still make me smile my high school and college coaches always called me a Trex because of the lack of use of my arms when sprinting or running. Maybe I just need better form.
The quote about Nero sounds way too fake but I get it, you blame the crazies for everything.
I always advocate warming up and cooling down in opposite direction to kind of balance all the running we do counterclockwise. Tuesday was 10 miles of track and 5 miles counter. I just always called it unwinding. Running is stressful.
Thinking should be done first, before training begins.
Biomimeticist
Minor component to your perspective. I study ostriches and you don't. Let's start there. Explain to me the biomechanic difference between how humans and ostriches run. Your, “analysis,” is utterly useless to any legitimate biologist. Despite the gibberish from my perspective, you politely ignored the far more pertinent question pathetically overlooked. Or was it because you couldn’t find any published study to explain what you can’t accomplish. The track question link sent was published in 2013. My invitation to test my techniques in Nike’s lab was because I asked their head biomechanic the exact same question in 2005.
That the psychological definition of intelligence is defined not by what you know, but when did you know it, I can easily prove how late to the party your reference is to someone like me.
Yes, humans are stronger on one side of their bodies than the other and push themselves counterclockwise as right- handed dominance is the most common for humans to have. But what about left-handed athletes? How do you train a left-handed track student to compete in a right-handed world?
Better yet, ask Salazar…
As challenged, that I teach a Soldier carrying 135lbs of equipment how to measure a lower heart rate at 7% incline than walking naturally at 0%? You tell me how I do it. Because if you can’t, explains how I teach velocity generation.
And I don’t need studies to prove my point so don’t even think to throw that garbage at me.. The question stands to how the women of Kenya carry 20% of their bodyweight with no increase in energy expenditure to do so. If you can’t explain how they do it, then go home because I can. My military references would readily tell you I can teach a 200lb Soldier how to carry a 40lb field pack with no increase in heart rate at all in doing so.
When basic training with the Army snaps in half 120 femurs every year, they surely aren’t going to waste the time until some useless drunk of a journal editor becomes sober enough to figure out what I teach is a skill warfighters need. Because I can easily replicate the women’s skill and you can’t stands for me as to why the head of combat training for SEAL Team 6 is one of my students and can guarantee he doesn’t give a flying flip about what you think of me.
Let’s be blunter if possible. If you think I’m a fool than let me prove it with one of your athletes in public view and public record of me teaching anyone how I train our military elite. If you really don’t think I know what I’m talking about, what will you do to put your money where your mouth is? If you have an athlete whereas a 20% improvement in speed would set a record of merit regardless to gender, I’ll gladly teach them what you can’t. Oh, and you have to let my training be documented.
Given my best is a 27% increase in speed, teaching any of your athletes how the elite of track truly run, would easily overcome any record hurdle a motivated athlete could achieve. I've done the lab comparisons with force plate, biomarker 3D analysis, and oxygen consumption testing. If you can mimic the Kenyan women’s load bearing abilities, I'll gladly give you the number of the people who would be more than willing to listen to what you have to teach them that they can’t accomplish. Because if I can teach anyone to carry 20% of their bodyweight with no increase in energy expenditure, then once anyone removes the weight, what you do with the energy expenditure savings after that is your choice, run 20% faster or 20% further.
And for the record, the women of Kenya aren’t even very good at load bearing. Since that title goes to the Porters of Nepal, I can tell you that I’m readily capable of teaching combat porters how to carry 200% of one’s bodyweight.
Shall we start there?
And let’s see who has the last laugh…
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
Not to mention the ACL tear BS of your post. Hate to tell anyone, but soccer is a far more popular sport in playing four our youth than track will ever be. If your experience with sports injuries is limited to just running in counterclockwise circles, then I can't stop laughing to how useless your views of me truly are.
If you haven't read, ACL tears are two billion dollar per year industry in this country. And the most popular sport to incur them is soccer. Once again, I won't tell you to stay in your lane, I'll tell you to stay home and hide in the bathroom if you think you know anything about combat or athletic training.
The knee is the most damaged part of any warfighter's body. So why don't you tell me how despite the useless education you have you aren't smart enough to care that the injury is increasing, rather than decreasing in frequency for those under the age of 18. Every branch of service would love to know your answer...
ACL tears are listed as an, "overuse injury." Exactly how does a 13 year old, "overuse," their knee joint. At that age it isn't overuse, it's misuse. and because of the uselessness of your education, what you teach is legally defined as torture.
Slower but happier
”If Weyand or anyone else actually took the time to ask an ostrich how they run...”
2020 goal: couch to 5K, currently working on the couch block
Are we there, yet?
Please do some fact checking before spouting nonsense. Football leads participation in boys HS sports and track and field leads in girls HS sports. Track and Field is second in boys sports participation. Soccer is fifth for boys, fourth for girls.https://www.nfhs.org/articles/high-school-sports-participation-increases-for-29th-consecutive-year/
2024 Races:
03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles
05/11 - D3 50K 05/25 - What the Duck 12-Hour
06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.
Hey Jester,
I don't claim to know anything about combat. I don't speak to topics I don't fully understand.
The two studies you posted directly conflict with your theories. These are the studies you say you commonly use and yet you do not understand them. I am curious why? That is my only question right now for you because frankly if you do not understand someone else's research that you revere, how can any of us expect you to have the ability to analyze any of your own lab results. You have already discredited yourself here.
Oh, and to your question. Read my other posts. I asked you what velocity your subjects were going at and I asked for your published study. If you don't have one then I am very uninterested.
Sport jester firstly I appreciate you getting your point across but I think you'd have a wider audience if you drop some name calling. Be less aggressive, I want to hear your point and i understand your frustration with getting people to think differently like you and I do but bullying it across is not cool. I'm sometimes guilty and trust me you get their attention for all the wrong reasons. Then they completely miss the point and go into attack frenzy. You have our attention, if you keep spouting off aggressively it looses our attention we can continue the debate\discussion without being bombastic.
My next question is 20% reduction in energy doesn't always mean the same increase in performance. A long time ago I use to race cars. And it was always a challenge getting all the engine HP to the wheels. You will say we aren't machine but we are all governed by the laws of physics. So even if I am 20% more efficient by following your training it doesn't necessarily mean I get that in speed. That;s why earlier I said 5-10% id be happy. When I built up a car and to 750 engine HP it never translated to the wheels the engine might be 750 650 at the fly wheel 550 at the wheels for example total power never reached the wheels due to weight chassis rigidity etc. (I was racing all wheel drive long before it became a thing. I raced on purpose built 4G63 engine) So because we are more efficient it doesn't all get to equal output. That's why these studies that measure force plates Ground contact etc from your own research would be helpful in proving your point and not just the conclusion.
Hi everyone,
I am a novice runner that looks on this site occasionally. I like the forums here a little better than let's run because it is usually more inviting.
I have not felt an urge, to weigh in, in the past. Today, I can't help myself. You see, part what I do is breaking code, analyzing patterns, etc. After looking this, I am 95%-99% confident that Nimmals and sport jester are the same person. The writing pattern, the sequences, and the replies, make it obvious. I'm sorry if I am wrong, but, I am really good at what I do. The adimin should have a way to confirm this if they care... to which they probabaly don't. Unless, they are looking to get rid of the alter ego of Nimmals
3 months til Masters
No they are not. We have seen races of nimmals and sport jester has had articles written about them. Who know who they are in the real world.
2023 Goals
Marathon Sub 2:37 (CIM) 2:41:18
10k Sub 35:00 (Victory 10k 34:19)
5k Sub 16:00 (Hot Dash 5k in March (16:48), Brian Kraft in May (16:20), Twilight 5000 in July and August (16:20/16:25 Both heat index 102-103F)
Sub 1:16 Half Marathon City of Lakes Half Marathon 1:15:47)
Sub 56:30 in 10 mile (Twin Cities 10 mile, Canceled due to weather, 56:35 as a workout)
2024 Goals
Sub 2:37 Marathon
Sub 1:15 Half
Sub 34 10k
Sub 16 5k
After looking this, I am 95%-99% confident that Nimmals and sport jester are the same person. I'm sorry if I am wrong, but, I am really good at what I do.
No you're not.
Hey Jester, I don't claim to know anything about combat. I don't speak to topics I don't fully understand.
I'm still waiting to figure out what you know let alone what you understand.
Combat isn't about running its about the ability to move. While your useless education states walking exerts an impact force of twice our bodyweight to walk and running imparts an impact force of four times our bodyweight (if we're efficient and not obese) to run, you're clueless to what that means when you're carrying 120-150lbs in combat.
Because with those kinds of weight loads, that 120lbs becomes almost an additional 500lbs of weight load impact forces to absorb when running under fire. So teaching anyone to walk at speeds they previously had to run has exponential impact in energy savings. It's also why I studied 1,400lb race horses, given they run with an impact force of four times their bodyweight as well, I figured that they might know more about managing the 5,600lbs of force to absorb for them, and that doesn't even count the added impact weight of the fat slob riding it...
In studying racehorses, the science is their having a joint called the stifle. Its not only identical in structure to the human knee, but a larger model to train orthopedic surgeons with. In the world of medical skill, to be in the elite for professional athletes, studying under Dr. McIlwraith is a pinnacle reference. This documentary introduces you to his program. At 3:20 is my world of study and at 13:25 is Dr. McIlwraith’s introduction.
If we're told humans run with an impact force identical to the human ratio of four times one's bodyweight, then my question was simple; how do horses weighing 1,400lbs protect themselves from almost three tons of force per step? And what can we learn from them in how they run to better protect human joints from damage.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtQl_sZ-ngU
With that reality, the question stands; how fast can you walk. At peak speeds for me tested at the UofO it was 9MPH. Given most humans transition from walking to running somewhere between 3-3.5MPH., then I think you can understand why teaching fully loaded soldiers to walk at 6MPH is a skill people with a real education in biomechanics comprehend respecting.
The two studies you posted directly conflict with your theories. These are the studies you say you commonly use and yet you do not understand them. I am curious why? That is my only question right now for you because frankly if you do not understand someone else's research that you revere, how can any of us expect you to have the ability to analyze any of your own lab results. You have already discredited yourself here. I asked for your published study.
Oh, please...
I don't contradict with anything I write and that's the joke of this for me. If you don't comprehend my logic, I'm not crazy, you're stupid. Because of my research in biomechanics, I saved the Army $3.9 million dollars a year they were wasting on weapons design. If you comprehended biomechanics beyond your own barstool education, you'd realize there are six biomechanically distinct running techniques documented to exist to be used by humans around the globe. Of them, the one you preach is the least efficient, and most injury prone of them.
Given the uselessness of your education, I don't expect science to make sense to you. I mean, I've asked a series of legitimate biomechanic questions and only one of them has been answered (years after me, but either way at least an acknowledgement). I'm still waiting for you to describe the differences between human and ostrich biomechanics because that would explain the differences between my world of science and your delusional realities. My statements contradict your view of the world, because neither T-Rex, or ostriches are stupid enough to follow them.
If you can't recognize the fallacy of your own education, how can I expect you to even think you can comprehend mine.
My question is direct. I have a nationally recognized reporter willing to cover the story of me training one of your students to set any viable record. I'm not talking about school, but minimum state record for any age track event. Just to be fair, I've been criticized by others that this wouldn't be the first time I've been challenged by anyone to prove my techniques.
I refused because the individual meant nothing to me. If your credentials are legitimate, then you're in a program with athletes of respectable ability. I mean a 20% improvement in speed is more than significant enough to be of merit competitively where you are...
But do you have the guts to let me prove what I claim, a 20% improvement in speed for any athlete you coach?
And if you have any self respect, don't ask for studies from me. I don't have to do studies because I have nothing TO study. In 1977 someone noticed that the women of Kenya seemed very good at carrying weight. So they STUDIED their skills and learned they're able to carry 20% of their bodyweight with no increase in energy expenditure. That is the study.
If you can reproduce that ability doesn't require any study, its a yes or no question with a yes or no answer.
Can you teach a 200lb Soldier how to carry 40lbs with a measured heart rate identical to walking without it?
Yes or no?
Because I can.
Which is why I can train our military elite and you can't...
Not to mention, if you don't accept my challenge (if you're truly a coach with any national recognition), only proves not only how stupid, but with what cowardice you're trying to discredit what I write.
Funny you mention him...
Because after reading his interview I went to find him. I have his personal office number as well as e-mail given it's of public record on the school website. So I called and left a voicemail message and e-mail to introduce myself.
Of course when you tell someone that you can teach anyone to run 20% faster in an hour, everyone thinks someone of his stature (attention Bill!!!!!!!!) that in no way would they ignore the chance to let me prove me right...
So Bill, or anyone else for that matter, why don't you ask that coward if he'll publicly test my claim either. Because as of the article date, I've yet to hear from him....
One more fool.