So what would your evaluation of this running technique be? (Read 1412 times)

Slow jumping from one foot to another?  Maybe an ancient version  of hopscotch.     The chalk marks have long worn away of course.

Given they were extrapolated to be running as fast as Usain Bolt, I think it speaks volumes to how little we know about running....

Who extrapolated this, and where can I read about it?

What happens after the fourth step?

<http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200512/23/images/1222_B76.jpg>

Sport Jester:

This is quite fascinating IF it's really 35000 years old.  However, being a Doubting Thomas as I am (;o)), if these are indeed natural footprints, wonder why there's no "drag"...  Assuming these are all implanted in the mud as this "person" walked naturally, USUALLY there is a flow of pressure point as the person's Center of Gravity moves through, finishing with a "kick" or a "push" and, as the foot "pushes off" the ground, usually instead of the foot being removed directly to the top, since the foot is moving FORWARD toward the direction of the person's heading, there's USUALLY a drag at the tip of the toes...  So if this is really the way biped creature (assuming it's a human) walked 35000 years ago, we might be looking at totally different technique of moving forward.

Also, it always fascinated me that, since the introduction of synthetic track surface, the technique of sprinting had moved from "single" line foot print to "double-line" foot print.  I've never attended but apparently Graham (what was his first name...; the coach of Justin Gatlin, the guy who got busted of drug use on his athletes) was talking about that at his clinic.  If you watch slow motion film of Carl Lewis from the front in Bud Greenspan's "Olympiad" (LA Olympics), you can see he's placing his feet on the double-lines.  I personally think for distance running, it's better to do "single-line" foot falls but there had been a lot of talk about this "double-line" for sprinting.  I don't know which one is better; but, as I said, for distance running, I believe single-line is more natural.  

hey Nobby,

Appreciate the comments. And yes, you're looking at a completely different running technique. I've been spending some of my time

in exchange with Peter McAllister, a Paleoanthropologist, and author of Manthology. He sent me the links to the fossil records and

this formal publishing of the speed extrapolation.

http://playthink.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/sdarticle-1.pdf

hey Nobby,

 

Appreciate the comments. And yes, you're looking at a completely different running technique. I've been spending some of my time

in exchange with Peter McAllister, a Paleoanthropologist, and author of Manthology. He sent me the links to the fossil records and

this formal publishing of the speed extrapolation.

http://playthink.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/sdarticle-1.pdf

Whoa, some of the subjects were running at a 250-300 steps/min. cadence?

Whoa, some of the subjects were running at a 250-300 steps/min. cadence?

 Pretty amazing.....

You have to take into account of their physical size being much smaller than we are.

My mistake to their size.

The point I wanted to make with this is that multiple running technqiues exist based on the needs of the runner.

Inline running isn't something we do naturally, so my exchange was to put forth the idea that their speed estimates were short of their true peak speed potential.

One wonders if those people were literally running for their lives.  Fleeing, chasing prey, playing a game, staging a race?