Gravity
Even such recent theories of "let gravity pull you forward" is wonderful proof of
the same continued pontification. So why do I have to pay $2.45 for a gallon of gas?
If gravity really pulls a human forward, it should pull everything forward. Gravity
doesn't pull my car forward, because I have the credit card bill to prove it can't.
Why are human beings the only thing in the world gravity can pull forward according
to running experts?
According to legend, Isaac Newton was hit on the top of the head with an
apple, not on the side of his head. So with theories describing gravity moving
you sideways instead of pulling you straight down, then running's, "experts,"
should be getting Nobel prizes in science for rewriting the laws of physics.
Letting gravity pull you forward or calling it "controlled falling" means nothing
to improving your running ability. We lean forward and push rearward to run. It was
from that reality Isaac Newton derived his third law of motion in the first place.
"Every action creates an equal and opposite reaction in the opposing direction."
That reality has never changed, and regardless of writing, our current batch of
experts hasn't changed those laws.
The unique part is that the women of Kenya unknowingly wrote their own perspective of
Newton's law.
Every walker and runner leans forward. The further your forward lean, the less
efficient you run. Even Michael Johnson may run as upright as humanly possible,
but he's been measured to have three degrees of forward lean from perfectly
vertical. It's not much, but it's still a forward lean. Until you face that
reality, you can't change the way you run.
So while the experts study Kenyan runners, I decided to learn from their teachers.
I took a leisurely stroll with the wood gathering women of Kenya and simply
started taking notes. I wanted to learn what makes them so much more efficient
and how I could extrapolate what they themselves don't know what they do.
In trying to unlock how they save energy, the most obvious difference is that
they look like the walking dead. The only part of their body in motion is their
legs. From the hips up, these women are perfectly motionless. They have absolutely
no arm swing or torso rotation at all.
What separates the good from the bad or the ugly runner is simply how much energy
you waste in every step you take. Wasted energy either limits your distance
capabilities or inhibits your potential top speed. That's the underlying theme
of what these unique women taught me.
That's why the goal of running isn't to be the fastest; it's to be the most
efficient. The difference is subtle, so to watch these women walk carrying their
firewood would leave any competent biomechanic in awe. The incompetent biomechanics
simply turn their backs to the challenge of explaining them and pontificate once
again that a better way to run doesn't exist. In that light, I feel like Toto
pulling back the curtain to expose the wizards of running.
The question of these women is simply how they do it. For answer, these women
waste absolutely no energy and laboratory testing proves it. Compared with a
traditional walking gait, the most important measurement of efficiency is called
weight transfer. That measurement is how well an individual can utilize momentum
so the least amount of muscular energy is necessary to transfer their weight from
one leg to the other.
An efficient traditional technique walker is lucky to transfer 65% of their
bodyweight to their next step. Carrying the wooden bundles, the women of Kenya
transfer 80% of their weight onto their next step using only their body's natural
forward momentum to move efficiently from one foot to the next. That difference
is an energy conserving ability that Kenyan runners learned and you can mimic as
well. It takes very little muscular energy for Kenyan women to transfer their
bodyweight forward. The women carry the wood with the saved energy and the runners
run faster without their even knowing why or how they do it.
If these women are so efficient in walking, then why do we ignore them? Instead of
pushing running speed as traditional coaching does, wouldn't it be a more logical
approach to think that if we were to take the opposite ideology and focus on becoming
a more efficient runner, that running faster would be a natural byproduct?
Speed doesn't guarantee efficiency, however increasing one's efficiency guarantees
better speed and efficient walking women as the role model for the fastest running
men proves it. With a backwards philosophy of pursuing efficiency instead of speed,
I discovered a completely different, healthier, and faster way to run.
Eliminate Waste
The first question was to look at the most obvious aspects of our running technique
and find ways to eliminate any wasted energy to forward motion. If the women of Kenya
are truly the role models the best runners follow, then observing absolutely no arm
swing created the first obvious difference between them and myself even at walking
speed. These women opened my eyes to what defines proper arm swing in a runner by a
wide variety of coaches.
Nowhere is the basic question I pose answered. Why do we swing our arms in the
first place? If we swing our arms when we walk and the women of Kenya don't, then
that difference is a vital reason to our running slower.
We refer to natural arm movement in walking and running as a, "counterbalance
arm swing," don't we? So if you swing your arms in counterbalance, then what's
so out of balance that you have to swing your arms and waste energy to counter
it? Have you ever asked that of yourself or any running expert that question?
How well balanced of a runner do you think you are?
If we swing our arms in counterbalance, then wouldn't the natural definition of
perfectly balanced running biomechanics prove itself by not having to swing your
arms at all? If your running technique were truly balanced, then nothing out of
balance would need to be countered with any arm swing.
With perfect balance the women of Kenya don't swing their arms at all when they
walk and that biomechanic efficiency becomes extrapolated into faster running
speed by the men who utilize that efficiency.
When I tell my running students that I can increase their top speed by 20%, that
statement is usually met with blank stares of disbelief. Yet if a runner is out
of balance, and their counterbalance arm swing proves they're out of balance,
that unnecessary energy is wasted trying to keep their imbalance in check. I
just take that wasted energy and apply it to higher speed. And the core of what
I teach is how to walk and run with absolutely no arm swing.
Every certified track and field running coach will tell you that you don't run
in a straight line, in fact you don't even walk in a straight line, because we
can't do it. The tribal women of Kenya do. Learn that skill and you'll run faster
with ease.
The further your body naturally deviates from a straight line of forward momentum,
the more energy you waste trying to maintain a straight path. That's the imbalance
your arm swing is struggling to compensate for. It's the unmentionable reality to
how we run.
Why Do We Run?
When I ask my students why they run they frequently reply with "Weight loss", "personal
challenge", "my boss does it so I have to do it", "cheapest form of exercise I know",
and a host of many other emotional reasons are their honest replies. Yet few truly
know why we have to run.
I didn't want emotional reasoning from my students, I was seeking from them the
biomechanic reasons we run. In it's most basic reality we run simply because we
can't walk anymore. Starting from a standstill, if one begins to walk and slowly
increase their speed, at some point you can't walk anymore. To speed up, at some point,
because of your biomechanic limitations of efficiency, you have to run. That transition
speed is crucial to any student of the running science.
Since every human is different, I'm not interested in your top running speed; I want to
know how fast you can walk. Studies show that for any given distance, we use less
energy walking than we would in running if the question is getting from one place
to another. It may take less time to travel between any two given points in running,
but the energy costs are higher.
The measurement is called bodyweight impact. Even with one foot still on the ground,
an efficient walker hits the earth's surface with an impact force equaling about
twice their bodyweight. Once we exert enough force behind our step to bring both
feet off the ground, coming down is an impact force that doubles our walking
measurements. Some experts will tell you that a runner absorbs 110 tons of
impact force per mile. That's a lot of weight to lose in my book.
So if an average runner hits the ground with a force of four to six times their
bodyweight in impact, then the math is simple. If I can walk at a speed you have
to run, then I'm using less energy and moving with less chance of injury for the
same pace. It's a wonderful trick to cross country running that my students utilize
when racing uphill and they love to laugh about it. That's why walking efficiency
is such a vital factor in training to be a good runner.
Given that the vast majority of runners have to stop walking and start running
somewhere between 3.5 and 4mph, excluding Olympic technique race walkers, that transition speed for any individual defines their true running biomechanic efficiency. Do you know your transition speed? Has anyone else besides me ever asked you that question?
Simply stated, if I can teach you to walk 20% faster, then teaching you to run
20% faster is easy. Applying strength and power to a faster and more efficient
walking speed naturally generates an end result higher running speed.
< < Previous Page
[1]
[2]
[3]
Next Page > >
