I stopped this after two minutes because it's just pseudoscience. I'm not saying you can't do a proper bio-mechanical analysis of running, but I'm saying this video has no clue what it's doing.

First issue: They're trying to measure real world distances in image space without proper camera calibration.

Second issue: Someone bouncing up and down by four inches does NOT equal miles of vertical climbing. Bouncing, in fact, requires NO energy other than what is lost to friction. There's a question of just how efficiently the human skeletal system can rebound, but this video isn't getting in to that. They simply assume that an up and down motion is using a lot of energy. Physics 1 would teach you how wrong this is.

They give a number later that one runner is doing 2.5 times as much work as another. Clearly B.S. Ok I'm done trying to do these guys work for them. Put the runners on a treadmill with a motion capture system and oxygen meters if you want to do this properly.

^ Well, the measurements may be pseudo-scientific, but these are all good points:

1. Reduce bounce... you realize we're talking about people here and not rubber balls... pretty much all the energy directed downwards is lost and the return height comes from muscular exertion.. "bounce" is used figuratively.

2. Optimize stride length... for most runners, optimal is a little longer.

3. Minimize overstride... figured this out myself in high school, observing the fastest guy on our team's stride... he practically looked like he was tripping his overstride was so far into the negative. He also ran on his toes which I copied and learned that you could avoid shin splints by reducing foot-flop.

4. Minimize crossover... this is good advice... I think of it as "keep your hips square" but it's all the same shit. Was also extremely easy to figure out as it's true your legs get tired almost instantly from crossover.

The advice might be good but the reasoning they're using to justify it is false. Things are much more complicated than they make out.

Why not take their third grade reasoning to the extreme and propose that you should run with zero bounce? If you tried this you'd find it requires very unnatural and inefficient movements.

yeah... I started watching this... and the math is completely idiot. and this is coming from someone really bad at math, and I can still see it makes no sense.

There is a road race that comes by my house. I was standing outside when the first of the runners zipped by. I was flabbergasted at how quiet they were. All I heard was wind.

Then the others runners started showing up.

Lots of sound. Shoes hitting the pavement hard. It was clear that the first runners were efficient with their movements.

This video just makes sense.

I also wonder how old some of the images in this video are. Those mustaches? Those tight running shorts?

That ain't contemporary!

To dismiss it after 2 minutes really isn't fair. It's a well-reasoned look at running technique. In any sport, the technique you use is a major part of performance. There are other less controllable factors--will, response to adversity, etc. that affect performance, but technique can be adjusted. For example, look at how similar all NBA All-stars shoot jumpshots.

I like the above comment about copying the best runner in school. That is exactly how I've learned technique for various sports I'm interested in. If you closely study people who do it well, you pick up subtle details that improve your own technique.

The bit about stride and its physical demands on the legs were particularly interesting. I am not a good runner, in fact, I HATE running for exercise (unless its secondary to the sport I'm playing), but I've come across a few articles in the past few years on this topic. The big focus of these articles is stride--heel-toe motion is a major cause of shin-splints and leg fatigue. Now you see those weird 'feet' running shoes that are designed to encourage less heel-to-toe motion.

This is *long.

It sounds like they have some good ideas, but this video was not the best way to do it. This video contains embellishments.

This could have been better if they had done everything in mathematical form devoid of the video embellishments.

The last part of the video seems like bullshit. This is a commercial, and not science.

This video has been flagged as being at least 10 minutes in length - declared long by NordlichReiter.

I agree that the physics and math are dubious, but the basic points seem to hold true. There are observable differences in the running techniques displayed here, the precise angles involved aren't exactly relevant. The points about stride length and point of foot contact are worth thinking about if you run, and as suggested, increased mobility of the major joints is an important factor in enabling you to run better.

As I noted, it is a commercial, and for a service I feel is dubiously marketed. I've experienced myself that proper massage can do wonders for mobility, practically immediately, but I'd expect serious proof to believe it can actually reduce scar tissue. If interested, look up "self-myofascial release" and "trigger point massage"

*anatomy

Adding video to channels (Anatomy) - requested by calvados.

By the looks of it, it's a commercial built on already known facts about running technique to market a bullshit scar tissue reducing super magic wonder massage.

I felt they were trying to sell you something, the phoney acting by this alleged patient and this miracle doctor and all, getting rid of the microfiber while his shoulders blocking the camera etc etc. I am a bit skeptical about that part. But the first 2/3rd of the video concerning the running techniques seemed pretty plausible.

We know human biodiversity plays a significant role in diversity of performance, particularly at elite levels where most people are using similar techniques.

It's unscientific to dismiss without evidence the default expectation that West Africans' sprinting excellence and East Africans' long distance excellence is influenced by normal biodiversity.

You're only counting the down part of the bounce, the 4" fall. That's converting potential energy to kinetic energy. And that may seem like free kinetic energy, but it has to come from somewhere.

And that somewhere is the kinetic energy exerted by the runner pushing their body up. Extra energy used pushing the body up is energy lost for pushing the body forward.

I think you took a bad Physics course.

Their math was dubious at best (the delusional ramblings of a crazy person at worst), but the basic concept that reducing bounce conserves energy is absolutely true.>> ^rychan:

Bouncing, in fact, requires NO energy other than what is lost to friction. There's a question of just how efficiently the human skeletal system can rebound, but this video isn't getting in to that. They simply assume that an up and down motion is using a lot of energy. Physics 1 would teach you how wrong this is.

yeah, this is just a mix of weird and bullshit.

Funny presentation scheme, though:

'The problem is that many American's hyperglide with a bimodal pronation, instead of hypogliding with quad-polar pronation.
Hypergliding with bimodal pronation during a marathon is like flipping the pages of a 20000 page book with your toes in 4 hours.
Other top American runners who hyperglide with a bimodal pronation include Jason Lancooly, Ned Jacobson, and Tom Frankel-..., -berry...'

Man whoever made this video sure put a bunch of fake science together to sell some BS. Plus there is a lot of hate towards Ryan Hall. The man is literally the best marathoner in the US, so he is clearly doing something right. Right now he isn't that far behind other non US eliete runners. He's been a top three finisher in the Boston marathon and a top ten in the Olympics. The man bounces a little more simply because of his foot strike, something that isn't even mentioned.

Maybe Ryan Hall's natural bounce is larger and he's minimized it. That part of the video does bother me. The implied correlations don't make a lot of sense unless you assume the creators give the audience credit to know they're using extraordinarily athletes (statistical outliers versus the number of runners in the world) to illustrate principles being sold to people who probably don't run marathons.

>> ^budzos:

^ Well, the measurements may be pseudo-scientific, but these are all good points:
1. Reduce bounce... you realize we're talking about people here and not rubber balls... pretty much all the energy directed downwards is lost and the return height comes from muscular exertion.. "bounce" is used figuratively.
2. Optimize stride length... for most runners, optimal is a little longer.
3. Minimize overstride... figured this out myself in high school, observing the fastest guy on our team's stride... he practically looked like he was tripping his overstride was so far into the negative. He also ran on his toes which I copied and learned that you could avoid shin splints by reducing foot-flop.
4. Minimize crossover... this is good advice... I think of it as "keep your hips square" but it's all the same shit. Was also extremely easy to figure out as it's true your legs get tired almost instantly from crossover.


Well said on the bounce thing, i don't think humans bounce very much at all. Especially from such a small height onto such a rigid surface. And if they bounced as he suggested - with no extra energy being added to the system - the bounce would decrease in vertical displacement until it stopped being a bounce. Just like a rubber ball on a hard surface - it loses bounce height because you lose energy to various things such as sound, heat, some lost as the ball changes shape on impact, etc.

After ripping my knee out in a dirt-bike accident (think snapping a chicken wing in two), I don't run.

Having said that, I think it's crazy that man has reduced a basic function of the human body down to scientific knowhow! Should we tell our tribal ancestors they've been doing it all wrong all this time??

I think learning to run barefoot as a kid probably helps a lot of those African runners with technique.

I switched to barefoot running recently. I'm working on building up the callouses on my skin and do small distances with no shoes at all. Feels great, even in the street. I use Vibrams for longer runs. My joint pain has disappeared. Long story short, my running shoes were making me run badly. I don't hit my heel on the ground anymore, and I land with much more bend in my knee. My stride feels more fluid ... and I have to say a lot less bouncy. I still don't have the extension, but I'm working on that.

This NPR report has an interesting video comparing the stride of a runner who wears shoes and a runner who always ran without shoes. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123031997.

>> ^rychan:

The advice might be good but the reasoning they're using to justify it is false. Things are much more complicated than they make out.
Why not take their third grade reasoning to the extreme and propose that you should run with zero bounce? If you tried this you'd find it requires very unnatural and inefficient movements.


Things don't need to be complicated if you don't go into the metabolism side of things. Running is different from walking in that both of you feet are off the ground at the same time. You're basically flying through the air most of the time, or should be. Bouncing too much shows that you make contact with the ground for too long. By simply landing on the balls of your feet (not your toes or, worse, your heels) without trying to push yourself forward (i.e. with legs straight down under you at the instant your whole foot is contacting the ground and then pulling the foot up instead of pushing out with your toes), you can create a spring like reaction in your leg muscle that will give you just enough vertical energy to stay level with the ground, reducing the bounce to a theoretical minimum of zero. What makes you advance forward is your previous momentum combined with gravity making your slightly forward-leaning body fall at an angle (the lean will need to be more pronounced the faster you want to run). With good form, you can easily create a very constant stride without bounce since you do not rely on your leg muscles to propel yourself, but only to keep you up in the air for the longest possible proportion of time (resulting in less friction, more energy transfer from gravity, etc.). Look at horses : their hind legs are bent backwards for propulsion, yet they still have no bounce (we feel a bounce because we ride in the middle, but in absolutes they do not bounce). Plus, their front legs always hit the ground at a 90 degree angle right under them. In human terms, the front legs are our legs, the hind legs are our slight forward lean. If we had not adapted this way, we'd either be running like kangaroos, i.e. by actually bouncing, or we'd not be able to run at all, like monkeys.

tl;dr : landing on the balls of your feet keeps you in the air at a stable, constant height; leaning slightly forward allows gravity to pull you forward.

Walking though is very different. Here you want the pendulum effect created by the arms to conserve energy, but the same principle applies for maximum efficiency : land with the legs at 90 degrees to the ground, under your center of gravity and don't push with your toes. Of course there are ways to walk/run faster with less efficiency, it all depends whether you're in a marathon or a race.

>> ^Sagemind:

After ripping my knee out in a dirt-bike accident (think snapping a chicken wing in two), I don't run.
Having said that, I think it's crazy that man has reduced a basic function of the human body down to scientific knowhow! Should we tell our tribal ancestors they've been doing it all wrong all this time??


On the contrary, they're the ones who have been doing it right all along. Mass consumerism + fad marketing destroyed our feet with "running" shoes. Plus, scientists have assumed for a long time that everyone knows instinctively how to run properly. They were wrong. Just as we learn how to walk we must learn how to run. Some can learn on their own, some copy others like Angua1 and some just can't run or end up copying bad running forms from people who "unlearned" how to run thanks to padded "running" shoes. Our ancestors learned how to run properly because for them it was a vital skill, just like using a bow, a knife or a sling. Plus they didn't have padded shoes, medical treatment or motorized locomotion so running badly was not an option if they were to survive long enough to reproduce.

That said, the video is bullshit. Go look for the POSE method of running for accurate information. This method also addresses the crossover problems.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by doogle.

*backup=<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/20391398" width="500" height="375" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>

Sub 2 Hour Marathon | An American Record? from Somax Performance Institute on Vimeo.