Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Training > Endurance

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-09-2009, 08:44 PM   #11
Patrick Donnelly
Senior Member
 
Patrick Donnelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 720
Default

Garrett, I have no doubt in my mind that a forefoot strike is the best way to run. I simply wonder what the reasoning was behind defining "running economy" as oxygen consumption. I can see that burning more oxygen means you're burning more calories, but if you're also using more muscles, then that could help slow the occurrence of fatigue/cramps in specific muscle groups. That would permit you to run for a longer time, therefore making it more effective, at least in one sense, even if more calories are burned.

I wonder how much of the increased oxygen consumption came from the calves alone. In heel-toe, the calves don't play any substantial role, since the impact is all absorbed by the minimal elasticity of the cartilage in your joints (a bad idea, but that's what happens). With a forefoot strike, all of that force absorption is immediately assumed by the calves. Muscles absorbing force takes energy (and therefore oxygen); joints absorbing force just causes pain. Is 0.25 L/min a huge difference? Just thinking.
Patrick Donnelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 09:03 PM   #12
George Mounce
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Low View Post
But as I stated I don't think that matters as long as performance improves & you feel better + less injuries.
I wholeheartedly agree!
George Mounce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 09:13 PM   #13
Donald Lee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646
Default

I'm not sure if the researcher stated it in his comment, but I remember reading way back when I read about all this stuff, that they never measured the progress throughout the trial period. They merely took measurements in the beginning and at the end. This doesn't really give a clear picture of what happened.
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 05:40 AM   #14
Brian Stone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 502
Default

Fair enough - I'm sold. I just wanted to look into the viability of POSE before I committed the time and effort to learning a new technique. Great discussion to all involved.
Brian Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 05:46 AM   #15
Brian Stone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Donnelly View Post
Garrett, I have no doubt in my mind that a forefoot strike is the best way to run. I simply wonder what the reasoning was behind defining "running economy" as oxygen consumption. I can see that burning more oxygen means you're burning more calories, but if you're also using more muscles, then that could help slow the occurrence of fatigue/cramps in specific muscle groups. That would permit you to run for a longer time, therefore making it more effective, at least in one sense, even if more calories are burned.

I wonder how much of the increased oxygen consumption came from the calves alone. In heel-toe, the calves don't play any substantial role, since the impact is all absorbed by the minimal elasticity of the cartilage in your joints (a bad idea, but that's what happens). With a forefoot strike, all of that force absorption is immediately assumed by the calves. Muscles absorbing force takes energy (and therefore oxygen); joints absorbing force just causes pain. Is 0.25 L/min a huge difference? Just thinking.
The original article I cited did mention that the stress in POSE that you normally find on the knees was transferred to the ankles, so POSE does not necessarily introduce the relative absence of joint stress, only shifts it. Or so the original source claims.

Edit to add citation:

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/10/pose-running-reduces-running-economythe.html
Trying to make radical, wholesale changes to running technique is probably not the optimal way to go, for it simply transfers the point of loading on the skeleton to another area. Specifically, the research study discussed in Part III of the series (a study we were both involved in at UCT) found that 2 weeks of training caused the loading on the knee to be reduced, but the loading on the ankle increased.
It's not entirely clear from that description, but the increased loading may only be mainly due to inexperience with the movement.

Last edited by Brian Stone; 03-10-2009 at 05:54 AM. Reason: Added citation
Brian Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 08:14 AM   #16
Garrett Smith
Senior Member
 
Garrett Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 4,368
Default

Patrick,
Heel strike running does put lots of stress on the calves [EDIT - I meant lower leg]--the anterior tibialis decelerating the "foot slap"--that's what leads to shin splints in those runners so often.

I also think that measuring oxygen consumption was a relatively poor way of measuring running economy (efficiency). The best distance runners (or endurance anything athletes) don't necessarily have the highest VO2max, and I'm not sure that oxygen consumption necessarily gives a good impression of perceived exertion or actual work output (it would seem to be quite an assumption).
__________________
Garrett Smith NMD CSCS BS, aka "Dr. G"
RepairRecoverRestore.com - Blood, Saliva, and Stool Testing
My radio show - The Path to Strength and Health
Garrett Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 08:17 AM   #17
Garrett Smith
Senior Member
 
Garrett Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 4,368
Default

Brian,
I do think the calf/ankle complex is likely better suited to take the force of running by design.

Note the lack of ankle replacements these days (like they even could), compared to the excess of knee replacements. I hardly see any ankle arthritis, while I see a ton of knee arthritis. I'd say that knees are wearing out prematurely compared to ankles, possibly showing that the knees are being "used" incorrectly...
__________________
Garrett Smith NMD CSCS BS, aka "Dr. G"
RepairRecoverRestore.com - Blood, Saliva, and Stool Testing
My radio show - The Path to Strength and Health
Garrett Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 11:00 AM   #18
Brad Collins
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7
Default

I have no idea about the science behind it all, but I know since switching to Pose I have no hip or knee problems when I run anymore. I weigh 245 so I took a pounding running with a heel strike. The only thing I've had to adjust to is the amount of work my calves now do, and the accompanying soreness after a run. But that has diminished as I've gotten more work in as well. Overall, I don't think I'm any faster yet using Pose, but I know my body feels better. That's all I care about.
Brad Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 01:09 PM   #19
Garrett Smith
Senior Member
 
Garrett Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 4,368
Default

I said calves, I should have said "lower leg". My bad, corrected above.
__________________
Garrett Smith NMD CSCS BS, aka "Dr. G"
RepairRecoverRestore.com - Blood, Saliva, and Stool Testing
My radio show - The Path to Strength and Health
Garrett Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2009, 11:10 AM   #20
Craig Loizides
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hillsborough, NJ
Posts: 120
Default

Running economy is the energy cost associated with running at a particular speed. It's usually given in O2/min or O2/mile. Running efficiency is often used interchangeably and is usually given in O2/kg/min.

George, I agree completely that it would make more sense to invert it and use mile/O2. For instance with cars we talk about miles per gallon. Then again, runners like to talk about their pace in min/mile rather than their speed in miles/hour. Oh well.

Here are a couple interesting articles on running economy.
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0950.htm
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0642.htm

If you do a search on pponline for running economy you can find some more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Donnelly View Post
Garrett, I have no doubt in my mind that a forefoot strike is the best way to run. I simply wonder what the reasoning was behind defining "running economy" as oxygen consumption. I can see that burning more oxygen means you're burning more calories, but if you're also using more muscles, then that could help slow the occurrence of fatigue/cramps in specific muscle groups. That would permit you to run for a longer time, therefore making it more effective, at least in one sense, even if more calories are burned.

I wonder how much of the increased oxygen consumption came from the calves alone. In heel-toe, the calves don't play any substantial role, since the impact is all absorbed by the minimal elasticity of the cartilage in your joints (a bad idea, but that's what happens). With a forefoot strike, all of that force absorption is immediately assumed by the calves. Muscles absorbing force takes energy (and therefore oxygen); joints absorbing force just causes pain. Is 0.25 L/min a huge difference? Just thinking.
This would have to mean that VO2max is increased by pose running. I don't think this has ever been shown. Pose has claimed though that their running style is more efficient.

Quote:
I also think that measuring oxygen consumption was a relatively poor way of measuring running economy (efficiency). The best distance runners (or endurance anything athletes) don't necessarily have the highest VO2max, and I'm not sure that oxygen consumption necessarily gives a good impression of perceived exertion or actual work output (it would seem to be quite an assumption).
Oxygen use is a pretty good indicator for energy use for aerobic work. There's generally a direct correlation between running economy and performance. A 1% improvement in economy will lead to roughly a 1% improvement in performance. It's true that VO2max isn't the best indicator of performance. A better metric would be something like lactate threshold velocity (LTV), the speed at which large amounts of lactate begin to accumulate. VO2max tells how much work you are capable of performing. Lactate threshold is the maintainable rate of energy usage. For an elite distance runner it might 85-90% of VO2max compared to 60-70% for a recreational runner. Efficiency determines the speed you can achieve at that oxygen rate.

General thoughts:
The comments in the original link are excellent and definitely worth reading. This is my favorite.

Quote:
P.S. I think that the biggest problem that Romanov might have is that Pose isn't all that different from a good Ball-Striking style. He points out how he found a group of high-level African runners, who he believed were running Pose (without having learned it). He showed them videos of Pose runners and analysed them against videos of the Africans. The Africans saw little or no similarity in their running styles. Second, many coaches advocate a high stride rate (at or above 180), and many champions (short, mid, & long distance incl. marathon) have stride rates that are above 200. Third, many coaches advocate ball-striking for faster, more efficient running. Fourth, anyone with a rudimentary understanding of Physics can see that landing significantly in front of the center of gravity is going to introduce braking action (i.e. inefficiency). Heel landing indisputably has more of this--that's just basic physics. The interesting question here is whether Pose is better than other ball-strike methods. The only thing that Romanov has going is a relatively simple (3 elements) method to get you to do these things."
In walking, the heel hits the ground in front of the center of mass. Does that mean we apply a huge braking force while walking? Did we evolve so that our primary means of movement is inefficient? The first link I listed above shows that walking is more efficient than running. The second link talks about how the Kikuyu women are able to avoid applying a braking force while walking. I find that keeping the feet dorsiflexed while walking or running seems to help eliminate braking force, increase energy return, and eliminates over extension of the ankle and knee. Give it a try with walking.

We squat through our heels. It doesn't mean we keep our toes off the ground while squatting. Running on the balls of your feet doesn't necessarily mean you have to keep the heels off the ground.

Running to me seems to be (like most functional movements) just an explosive opening of the hip. Actually I think you could probably argue that running was the driving force behind the evolution of powerful opening of the hip.

The idea of pulling and falling with you leg under your center of mass never really made sense to me. It's kind of like saying that you row by putting the oar in the water and pulling it straight out.

While the foot is on the ground it's moving backwards relative to your center of mass at the same speed that you are moving forward. Once it comes off the ground, momentum will cause it to continue moving back and up. Once it is back, gravity will cause it to swing forward like a pendulum setting it up in position for the next explosive opening of the hip. At least that's how I envision it. Running is a pull, but pulling isn't necessary to get the foot off the ground.
Craig Loizides is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.