View Full Version : shoes on the cover of Fixx's book

shoes on the cover of Fixx's book

Pages : [1] 2

Mike Mentzer

just curious...

On the cover of Jim Fixx's first book of running, there's a
red pair of what looks like ASICS shoes on someone's feet
(Fixx's?). does anyone know what model these were? they look
like they have a very thin sole and zero cushion...not good
for running?

thanks

Topcounsel

>On the cover of Jim Fixx's first book of running, there's a
>red pair of what looks like ASICS shoes on someone's feet
>(Fixx's?). does anyone know what model these were?

It is the same maker as ASICS, but at the time these shoes
were very common and were known as Onitsuka "Tigers."

Believe it or not, you can still buy them! And yes, the
soles are thin, but this is not unlike a lot of the running
shoes of the late 70's.

Ozzie Gontang

[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the "To,"
"Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

In article
<e5e8c733.0404042032.7baaecf3@posting.google.com>, Mike
Mentzer <fallencross@hotmail.com> wrote:

> just curious...
>
> On the cover of Jim Fixx's first book of running, there's
> a red pair of what looks like ASICS shoes on someone's
> feet (Fixx's?). does anyone know what model these were?
> they look like they have a very thin sole and zero
> cushion...not good for running?
>
> thanks

Great for running especially if one has learned to run
lightly upon the surface of terra firma. The issue and
continued discussion and dialogue on form and style looks at
running from side of how you run and land lightly so that
there is less need for the cushioning of the modern hitech
running shoes.

I train and run in racing flats and as thin a soled shoe as
I can find.

Here's an article from a few years back looking at landing
only on the surface of the ground.

In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Maintainer -
rec.running FAQ Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est.
1975

Mindful Running: http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-
faq/

Summary Run Softly Over Hard Surfaces & Train on
Uneven Terrain

In running the problem is not the hard ground but the force
at which one lands on the hard ground. In running the
problem of sprained ankles is due to the overuse syndrome of
running on flat surfaces. The Flat Surface Overuse Syndrome
(FSOS pronounced F-Sauce) is a major cause of sprained
ankles. The muscles of the ankle are made to adapt to
unevensurfaces and need to be trained accordingly.

Run Softly Over Hard Surfaces & Train on Uneven Terrain
c. 2000, 2001 Austin "Ozzie" Gontang, Ph.D. & Conal Guan-Yow

Conal Guan-Yow Ho <conalho@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:

> If you have to pick either, the street is the one to run
> on because the pavement is typically made of concrete
> which is a very unforgiving surface. Roads are typically
> made of asphalt and they're more forgiving. In addition,
> you're constantly climbing up and down sidewalks because
> they're not continuous. Your wife is doing the right thing
> (i.e., if she has to pick either one). Most running
> sources don't recommend running on the pavement because
> it's too hard. C

I think I disagree. Let me take you down to where I'm going
to. If you are running on concrete, pavement or the
compacted sand on the beach, none of them give. So in my
mind's eye all three are all unforgiving surfaces.

I recommend running on pavement be it concrete or asphalt
with proper running form and style. You land lightly because
you only land on the surface of the hard surface. Your
center of gravity doesn't follow into that point of contact
but is already moving on from the planted foot.

The issue for me isn't the hardness of the surface, street
or sidewalk. The problem is the vertically vectored force at
which my foot hits or touches down. That impact, hard or
soft, depends on the vertical movement of my center of
gravity and where its impact point is on the surface of the
"hard" surface.

If I land only on the surface of the hard surface by
counterbalancing the impact of the planting foot with the
upward lifting of the opposite knee and the same sided elbow
swinging forward and up, my center of gravity impacts the
ground very lightly. I have counterbalanced it.

Experiment:

Place several paper or Styrofoam cups on the ground
upside down.

d. Jump up and come down with one of the cups under the
planting foot and pop the cup. You should feel the jar
as rest of your center of gravity comes down on the
planted foot.

e. Lift one knee so that the foot is above another unpopped
cup. As you allow the foot over the cup to come down
smashing and popping the cup

f. Lift up the planted foot as quickly as you are stomping
down on the cup.

g. Allow your foot stomping cup popping foot to land only on
the surface of the hard surface. That is achieved by
counterbalancing the stomping foot with the planted foot
lifting it equally and opposite to the stomping foot.

This is how a martial can break a brick through a piece of
paper without tearing or ripping the paper. His/her fist
stops at the paper touching the brick but the energy goes
through it. The power transmitted to the brick shatters it
but the paper remains untorn.

However if I lift my body up vertically and come down on the
planting foot, I can get 2 or more times gravity impacting
at the point of foot contact.

If you've watched a cat jump up to a ledge, there's no clump
or hard landing since it cushions the landing. You or I can
run up a set of steps clomping each step or quietly on cat
like feet.

However, the reason I run on soft surfaces like grass or
dirt surfaces like Strawberry Fields is not because the
surfaces are soft. I run on soft surfaces because they are
uneven and allow the muscles controling the foot and ankle
to move through the full range of motion they was created to
move through.

So that's what it's all about. It is my view that running on
hard flat surfaces creates an overuse syndrome where the
foot/ankle is never allowed to do the adapting it was
created to do after a million years or more of adapting to
moving over uneven surfaces. People strain their ankles not
because the surfaces are uneven. Rather they sprain their
ankles because the muscles of the foot overused by
continuous running on flat surfaces don't know how to adapt
to the uneven surfaces.

Also the reason many people sprain their ankles severely
is because they are used to overstriding in addition to
the "Flat Surface Overuse Syndrome." (Remember where you
first saw this term. Shortened to FSOS or pronounced F-
Sauce) So when they come down on the foot, the whole
weight of the body comes crashing down on the bent or
bending everted ankle...and the muscles on the outside of
the foot (peroneus) are not able to take the overstretch
and give allowing for the ligaments of the ankle to be
strained or torn.

If I'm not overstriding when my ankle everts, my center of
gravity has already passed over the spraining foot and the
spraining foot doesn't take the full impact of the body's
weight. This saves the ligaments and tendons from bearing
the full brunt of the body on the tendons and ligaments.

So remember, Nothing is real. It's a word. So there's
nothing to get hung about. Just practice running lightly
on uneven surfaces as if you could run over Strawberry
Fields. Forever.

Donovan Rebbech

Ozzie Gontang

In article <050420040835389884%gontang215@sbcglobal.net>, Ozzie Gontang wrote:

> I think I disagree. Let me take you down to where I'm
> going to. If you are running on concrete, pavement or the
> compacted sand on the beach, none of them give. So in my
> mind's eye all three are all unforgiving surfaces.
>
> I recommend running on pavement be it concrete or asphalt
> with proper running form and style. You land lightly
> because you only land on the surface of the hard surface.
> Your center of gravity doesn't follow into that point of
> contact but is already moving on from the planted foot.
>
> The issue for me isn't the hardness of the surface, street
> or sidewalk. The problem is the vertically vectored force
> at which my foot hits or touches down. That impact, hard
> or soft, depends on the vertical movement of my center of
> gravity and where its impact point is on the surface of
> the "hard" surface.
>
> If I land only on the surface of the hard surface by
> counterbalancing the impact of the planting foot with
> the upward lifting of the opposite knee and the same
> sided elbow swinging forward and up, my center of
> gravity impacts the ground very lightly. I have
> counterbalanced it.

Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> responded:

This is not accurate. At the time of impact, there is no
knee lift yet. The leg that's not on the ground is as far
back as possible. The knee lift is *NOT* a corrective
response to impact -- it can't possibly be, since it occurs
after impact. Knee lift is a corrective response to the toe-
off. After impact, when the toe-off occurs, the leg that
contacts the ground moves back rapidly (relative to the
runner) and the knee lift counters that acceleration so that
the runner doesn't fall over. So you're right that knee-lift
is a corrective reaction in some sense, but you're not right
about what it corrects.

The reason we can run on hard surfaces has to do with a
number of factors:
(1) footwear helps cushion the impact
(2) there are studies that demonstrate that we can
adaptively account for impact on different surfaces by
adjusting leg stiffness. Harder surfaces are addressed
with a greater range of motion in knee flexion. The
greater range of motion and time in which impact
acceleration occurs reduces impact force.
(3) our running gait itself cushions impact via pronation.

All this gobbledy-gook about styrofoam cups is based on an
incorrect premise.

Cheers,

Ozzie Gontang replied:

Donovan,

Thanks for your thoughts. It allowed me to go back and look
at some marvelous running footage of Franka Polenta in some
of her running scenes in Run Lola Run.

I don't believe in trouble, I don't be in pain I don't
believe there's nothing left but running here again I don't
believe in promise I don't believe in chance I don't believe
you can resist the things that make no sense I don't believe
in silence cause silence is too slow I don't believe in
energy the tension is too low I don't believe in panic I
don't believe in fear I don't believe in promises so don't
waste any tears *(Believe, theme from Run Lola Run)

I don't believe reality could be the way it should But I
believe in fantasy the future's understood I don't believe
in mystery I don't believe in truth I don't believe that
destiny's something to accuse

First I must say that looking at Franka running in slow
motion with her Doc Martin type boots is watching poetry and
grace in motion.

Also I watched some of the lead runners at the 2003
Footlocker National Cross County in a video I shot of the
boys race. Morley Field is my backyard here next to Balboa
Park in San Diego.

With both I did slow motion and then individual frame
advance to

So let me repeat as I did in my original post: I think
I disagree.

At impact of the plant foot, the other knee is next to the
plant foot ready to go into the knee lift upward. It is not
as you word picture it: "The leg that's not on the ground is
as far back as possible."

The plant foot becomes the catapult point from which the
rest of the body catapults forward from that planted foot.
By the time the other foot is becoming the planted foot,
the knee of the previous planted foot is next to the
planted foot.

The quad and the psoas are bringing the knee forward and it
is at impact that the forward and upward vectors of the knee
counterbalance the downward vectors of the planting foot.
The knee lift for me is a counterbalance so that my body
weight is not fully vectored into the ground.

Dean Brittenham talked about the foot plant of a beginning
jogger, runner and elite racer as the difference between a
bean bag, a tennis ball, and a superball. The beginning
jogger usually lands with an overstride on the back of the
heel of the shoe which decelerates the body and puts the
vector force of the entire body into the planted foot. The
runner doesn't overstride and may still have a little too
much of a lifting of the entire center of gravity with each
step, so they come down harder. These runners often allow
the lower leg to swing forward from toe off. The elite
runner when you see him or her from the front, for a moment
look like they have only one lower leg as the other lower
leg is hidden behind the thigh. Their knee comes forward and
up revealing the lower leg which doesn't swing forward and
is ready to go right back down...like a kid speeding along
on a skate board.

You speak of toe-off. For me toe-off is not a pushing
forward with the toe rather the center of gravity pulls the
foot forward the last point of contact being the toe of the
plantar flexed (toe pointed) foot so that the hamstring can
tuck the lower leg behind the thigh (like the exercise of
kicking oneself in the butt with their heel) to allow the
psoas and quad to bring the knee forward and lifting quickly
to get the foot back on the ground quickly.

Again I don't believe that "the leg that contacts the ground
moves back rapidly (relative to the runner)." The foot that
contacts the ground does not move backwards relative to the
runner. That what it looks like from the perspective of the
observer of the runner.

To get this idea across, I use either ski poles or have a
person walk up stairs holding onto the railing on each side,
or at least one side if they can't reach both railings. Once
the ski pole or hand grabs the railing, the ski pole nor the
hand go backwards. It stays at that point of contact and the
rest of the body moves in front of it. So while it looks
like the arm or elbow swing behind the body, the truth is
the body is always moving in front of the arm. That's a
whole other dialogue for most runners to grasp.

Regarding the acceleration, I'll leave that up the those
that can better describe the physics.

The running body moves forward from the foot's point of
contact. From the point of foot plant the gluts and then
contracting hamstring are catapulting forward a running body
that is already in motion.

Regarding the points about footwear helping cushion the
impact. S.E. Robbins has a whole series of articles from
the early 90's that spoke about cushioning possibly causing
more injuries.

On point #2, I know that knee flexion is important in
cushioning body impact. I read the recent study by Arendse,
Noakes and others: reduced eccentric Loading of the Knee
with the Pose Running Method in Medicine & Science in Sports
and Exercise Vol. 36 #2, Feb. 2004. So Romanov has some
research behind what he's been teaching.

Finally, I don't believe "our running gait itself cushions
impact via pronation." You leave too much open unless you
define your terms.

Thanks for the opportunity to dialogue a little about
running form and style.

Regarding the styrofoam cups, the idea is that one can pop a
cup and land on the surface of the ground lightly by
counterbalancing by lifting the other knee so the center of
gravity is not driven into the cup popping foot.

In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Maintainer -
rec.running FAQ Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est.
1975

Mindful Running: http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-
faq/

Donovan Rebbech

In article <050420041857326413%gontang215@sbcglobal.net>, Ozzie Gontang wrote:

Hi Oz, thanks for your well-considered response.

> With both I did slow motion and then individual frame
> advance to
>
> So let me repeat as I did in my original post: I think I
> disagree.
>
> At impact of the plant foot, the other knee is next to the
> plant foot ready to go into the knee lift upward. It is
> not as you word picture it: "The leg that's not on the
> ground is as far back as possible."

I'll take your word for it -- don't have convenient access
to video but it sounds plausible.

> The plant foot becomes the catapult point from which the
> rest of the body catapults forward from that planted foot.
> By the time the other foot is becoming the planted foot,
> the knee of the previous planted foot is next to the
> planted foot.
>
> The quad and the psoas are bringing the knee forward and
> it is at impact that the forward and upward vectors of the
> knee counterbalance the downward vectors of the planting
> foot. The knee lift for me is a counterbalance so that my
> body weight is not fully vectored into the ground.

Regardless of whether you find that it serves that
purpose, it also serves the more essential purpose of
counterbalancing. We wouldn't even be able to think of
cushioning impact if we weren't able to run without
falling over.

However, it is impossible to balance the action of the
planted foot (which moves backwards in your frame of
reference) without bringing the other leg forward. You could
bring it forward fully extended (no knee lift) but that
would be very hard on the hip flexors, and inefficient
(think in terms of torque)

To summarise, it is *necessary* to bring the opposing leg
forward to counterbalance. Whether or not this reduces
impact as a side effect I don't know, but counterbalancing
is a more immediate need.

Some observations that would be consistent with the
counterbalancing notion:

(1) knee lift should increase with running speed, because
stride length increases (frequency stays constant)
(2) knee lift shouldn't change on soft surfaces. Running on
a trampoline will still produce knee lift.

Observations consistent with "cushioning" theory:

(3) knee lift independent of running speed (because vertical
forces aren't affected)
(4) should be reduced on soft surfaces.

> Dean Brittenham talked about the foot plant of a beginning
> jogger, runner and elite racer as the difference between a
> bean bag, a tennis ball, and a superball. The beginning
> jogger usually lands with an overstride on the back of the
> heel of the shoe which decelerates the body and puts the
> vector force of the entire body into the planted foot. The
> runner doesn't overstride and may still have a little too
> much of a lifting of the entire center of gravity with
> each step, so they come down harder. These runners often
> allow the lower leg to swing forward from toe off. The
> elite runner when you see him or her from the front, for a
> moment look like they have only one lower leg as the other
> lower leg is hidden behind the thigh. Their knee comes
> forward and up revealing the lower leg which doesn't swing
> forward and is ready to go right back down...like a kid
> speeding along on a skate board.

My observation: even very good runners have biomechanical
peculiarities. Most people will have a high knee lift if
they run at a 4:30 pace or so (as the elites do). Even if
they don't think of themselves as lifting their knees,
photos will show it.

> You speak of toe-off. For me toe-off is not a pushing
> forward with the toe rather the center of gravity pulls
> the foot forward the last point of contact being the toe
> of the plantar flexed (toe pointed) foot so that the
> hamstring can tuck the lower leg behind the thigh (like
> the exercise of kicking oneself in the butt with their
> heel) to allow the psoas and quad to bring the knee
> forward and lifting quickly to get the foot back on the
> ground quickly.

That's a reasonable way of thinking of it.

> Again I don't believe that "the leg that contacts the
> ground moves back rapidly (relative to the runner)." The
> foot that contacts the ground does not move backwards
> relative to the runner. That what it looks like from the
> perspective of the observer of the runner.

No -- in the runners frame of reference, the bulk of the leg
mass moves back as the glutes contract. On contact, the foot
is directly under the runner, but at the end near "toe off",
the foot is behind the runners center of gravity. The only
way the runner can maintain balance is for the other foot to
be in front of center of gravity.

> To get this idea across, I use either ski poles or have a
> person walk up stairs holding onto the railing on each
> side, or at least one side if they can't reach both
> railings. Once the ski pole or hand grabs the railing, the
> ski pole nor the hand go backwards. It stays at that point
> of contact and the rest of the body moves in front of it.
> So while it looks like the arm or elbow swing behind the
> body, the truth is the body is always moving in front of
> the arm.

It depends on which frame of reference you're looking at it
from. In the skiiers frame of reference, the arms are
moving, but in a stationary observers fram of reference, the
arms are stationary while the body moves.

When you're thinking in terms of maintaining balance, it's
more instructive to use the skiiers frame of reference.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Ozzie Gontang

>Regardless of whether you find that it serves that
>purpose, it also
serves the more essential purpose of counterbalancing. We
wouldn't even be able to think of cushioning impact if we
weren't able to run without falling over.

Donovan, I said it a multitude of times: Running is falling
and catching oneself gracefully.

>However, it is impossible to balance the action of the
>planted foot
(which moves backwards in your frame of reference) without
bringing the other leg forward. You could bring it forward
fully extended (no knee lift) but that would be very hard on
the hip flexors, and inefficient (think in terms of torque)

Oz: action/reaction balance/counterbalance My frame of
reference is that the planted foot is stationary and the
rest of the body moves forward from that point until the
planted foot is pulled off the ground by the forward moving
runner's body.

>To summarise, it is *necessary* to bring the opposing leg
>forward to
counterbalance. Whether or not this reduces impact as a side
effect I don't know, but counterbalancing is a more
immediate need.

Oz: I see the bringing of the leg forward as the
countermeasure so that I can put the foot down fast enough
so that I won't fall. The counterbalancing is more in
respect to the center of gravity and keeping it from moving
vertically more than is needed in effecient running.

>Some observations that would be consistent with the
>counterbalancing
notion:
(1) knee lift should increase with running speed, because
stride length increases (frequency stays constant)
(2) knee lift shouldn't change on soft surfaces. Running on
a trampoline will still produce knee lift.

>Observations consistent with "cushioning" theory:
(3) knee lift independent of running speed (because vertical
forces aren't affected)
(4) should be reduced on soft surfaces.

Oz: Need a little more explanation of what you're
saying above.

My observation: even very good runners have biomechanical
peculiarities. Most people will have a high knee lift if
they run at a
5:30 pace or so (as the elites do). Even if they don't think
of themselves as lifting their knees, photos will show it.

Oz: Total agreement of the observed signature biomechanical
peculiarities.

>No -- in the runners frame of reference, the bulk of
>the leg mass
moves back as the glutes contract. On contact, the foot is
directly under the runner, but at the end near "toe off",
the foot is behind the runners center of gravity. The only
way the runner can maintain balance is for the other foot to
be in front of center of gravity.

Oz: In the runner's frame of reference, I see it as: the
bulk of the leg mass moves "forward" as the glutes contract.
The glutes if I remember correctly from John Jesse account
for about 55% to 65% of the forward thrust away from the
planted foot. In my mind's eye, the leg is never moving
backwards from the point of foot plant or contact. The rest
of the body is moving forward from that point.

The action is the pushing down on the planted foot; the
planted foot not moving; the rest of the body moving forward
and away from that planted foot.

>It depends on which frame of reference you're looking at
>it from. In
the skiiers frame of reference, the arms are moving, but in
a stationary observers frame of reference, the arms are
stationary while the body moves.

Oz: For me the skier's arms are always moving forward; the
body passes the point where the ski pole is planted; it
looks like the arms are moving backwards as the body passes
the point where the ski pols is planted; the arms are
brought forward to plant the ski poles again.

If you have someone run in place and also using their arms
as if running; you'll see that they swing the elbows in
front of and behind the body. In running forward, that is
not what happens.

>When you're thinking in terms of maintaining balance,
>it's more
instructive to use the skiiers frame of reference.

Oz: I look at it more of maintaining a forward lean from
the ankle. This is where I was taken to task last time with
my analogy of holding the broom in the palm of my hand
(broom handle being my body). As the broom handle falls
forward from the point of contact in my palm; if I can move
forward to maintain a constant angle of lean for the broom;
the broom's angle of lean won't increase and I can keep
moving with the forward falling broom handle. I see the
earth as the palm of my hand and my forward falling body as
the broom handle.

In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Maintainer -
rec.running FAQ Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est.
1975

Mindful Running: http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-
faq/

Cheers,

Donovan Rebbech

In article <060420041111506619%gontang215@sbcglobal.net>, Ozzie Gontang wrote:

> Oz: action/reaction balance/counterbalance My frame of
> reference is that the planted foot is stationary and the
> rest of the body moves forward from that point until the
> planted foot is pulled off the ground by the forward
> moving runner's body.

The only frame of reference in which the planted foot is
stationary is that of a stationary observer (ie an observer
who is not moving relative to the ground).

In any frame of reference that is nonstationary, the planted
foot (which is on the ground) appears to be moving.

I could describe the problem from the point of view of the
stationary frame of reference that you appear to prefer, but
this would make the issue even more confusing.

So let me try another approach instead: try to think of a
runner running on a treadmill (that way, the stationary
frame of reference is the same as the runners). Now that the
runner is on the treadmill, the planted foot, which rests on
the treadmill belt has to move backwards, right ? So
something also has to move forwards so that the runner can
maintain his balance.

>>Some observations that would be consistent with the
>>counterbalancing
> notion:
> (1) knee lift should increase with running speed, because
> stride length increases (frequency stays constant)
> (2) knee lift shouldn't change on soft surfaces. Running
> on a trampoline will still produce knee lift.
>
>>Observations consistent with "cushioning" theory:
> (1) knee lift independent of running speed (because
> vertical forces aren't affected)
> (2) should be reduced on soft surfaces.
>
> Oz: Need a little more explanation of what you're
> saying above.

If you have a model, one should be able to use that model to
make predictions. One can validate/invalidate the model by
testing these predictions. The predictions that follow from
my model appear to be consistent with what we know about
running. For example, high speed increases knee lift.

If the purpose of knee lift were only to aid cushioning,
there's no reason to believe that knee lift would increase
with speed.

Interestingly, I have found that trying to focus on knee-
lift during running leads to overstriding -- because it
causes a delay in foot-plant. One is better off using
whatever knee lift follows naturally from gait (and it
will increase naturally as stride length and speed
increase) instead of exaggerating it. In fact if anything,
I find it more effective to "avoid" knee lift and focus on
planting the foot down quickly to keep a good turnover
(actually, despite the imagery, the end result is still a
high knee lift)

>>No -- in the runners frame of reference, the bulk of the
>>leg mass
> moves back as the glutes contract. On contact, the foot is
> directly under the runner, but at the end near "toe off",
> the foot is behind the runners center of gravity. The only
> way the runner can maintain balance is for the other foot
> to be in front of center of gravity.
>
> Oz: In the runner's frame of reference, I see it as: the
> bulk of the leg mass moves "forward" as the glutes
> contract. The glutes if I remember correctly from John
> Jesse account for about 55% to 65% of the forward thrust
> away from the planted foot. In my mind's eye, the leg is
> never moving backwards from the point of foot plant or
> contact. The rest of the body is moving forward from
> that point.

I'm not sure what you mean. In the runners frame of
reference, the planted leg moves back and the other leg
moves forward.

> The action is the pushing down on the planted foot; the
> planted foot not moving; the rest of the body moving
> forward and away from that planted foot.

This is only true in the stationary observers frame of
reference. It is almost impossible to understand what is
required for balance when dealing with this frame of
reference, which is why I suggest avoiding it.

>>It depends on which frame of reference you're looking at
>>it from. In
> the skiiers frame of reference, the arms are moving, but
> in a stationary observers frame of reference, the arms are
> stationary while the body moves.
>
> Oz: For me the skier's arms are always moving forward; the
> body passes

That's only true in a grounded frame of reference. In the
skiiers frame of reference, the arms are not always
moving forward.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Robert Grumbine

In article <slrnc75u5b.i28.abuse@panix2.panix.com>,
Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <060420041111506619%gontang215@sbcglobal.net>,
>Ozzie Gontang wrote:

The exchanges here remind me of some thoughts I want to
crystallize before posting. But in the mean time, a few
bits and pieces.

[snip]

>If you have a model, one should be able to use that model
>to make predictions. One can validate/invalidate the model
>by testing these predictions. The predictions that follow
>from my model appear to be consistent with what we know
>about running. For example, high speed increases knee lift.
>
>If the purpose of knee lift were only to aid cushioning,
>there's no reason to believe that knee lift would increase
>with speed.

Sure there is. Ground impact forces increase with speed
-- subject of a research paper Sam posted and I snarfed
from the web.

It's also a question whether the high speed causes the
knee lift to increase, or vice versa.

>Interestingly, I have found that trying to focus on knee-
>lift during running leads to overstriding -- because it
>causes a delay in foot-plant. One is better off using
>whatever knee lift follows naturally from gait (and it
>will increase naturally as stride length and speed
>increase) instead of exaggerating it. In fact if anything,
>I find it more effective to "avoid" knee lift and focus on
>planting the foot down quickly to keep a good turnover
>(actually, despite the imagery, the end result is still a
>high knee lift)

Getting my ankles up seems to be more useful than thinking
of the knee or on bringing the foot down in distance
running. In sprinting, I focus on driving the foot down.

[snip]

>>>It depends on which frame of reference you're looking at
>>>it from. In
>> the skiiers frame of reference, the arms are moving, but
>> in a stationary observers frame of reference, the arms
>> are stationary while the body moves.
>>
>> Oz: For me the skier's arms are always moving forward;
>> the body passes
>
>That's only true in a grounded frame of reference. In the
>skiiers frame of reference, the arms are not always
>moving forward.

Indeed. Which is why I'm a little puzzled that neither of
you seem to be allowing for the role of the upper body and
arms in balancing.

As far as a general consideration of physics with respect
to running mechanics, the center of mass frame of
reference suggests something regarding what happens at the
foot that is touching down.

If one did a gazelle (antelope?) pronk -- springing from
the ground and holding form fixed from there on -- then
the center of mass moves through a simple parabolic arc
and you come down on your landing foot. Your mass is
fixed, and gravity is fixed. The force required to stop
you from puddling into the ground is then determined
entirely by how long you take to decelerate. If you land
stiff-legged, you decelerate rapidly, so enormous forces.
If you do a long flex of major muscles, it requires far
less force. The length of the flexing is limited by your
stride rate -- you're going to decelerate to zero vertical
motion, and then accelerate back to an upward motion
(i.e., launch in to your next step). As stride rate
increases, or the flight time (stride length) increases,
it's required to apply greater forces in your landing.
(all this is independant of surface, except insofar as a
soft surface could absorb some of the landing forces for
you. But _something_ has to supply those forces.)

That says nothing about moving other body parts as part of
your landing, or flight, process. Up to the time a foot
touches ground, your center of mass moves in that simple
parabola (I'm neglecting wind resistance). Regardless of
what else you do, the center of mass moves on the
parabola. But you can move body parts relative to the
center of mass. If you pull your non-landing leg and both
arms upward (relative to the center of mass), then other
body parts, such as the landing leg must be accelerated
_downward_ (otherwise the center of mass is moved up, and
that's a no-no without a surface to push against). Keeping
the arms fixed and pulling the off leg up means _extra_
force downward on the landing leg.

i.o.w., whoever suggested the knee lift at impact reduced
landing forces doesn't have the physics right. On
the other hand, a runner who is thinking about
smoothly lifting his non-landing leg is liable to
not do a jackhammer landing on his other leg. So
the 'running' may well be right, even if the
physics aren't.

Conflicts like this are why I'm not confident of the value
of physics-style analyses for runners or coaching of
runners.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and
amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo
Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less
appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a
more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Ozzie Gontang

[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the "To,"
"Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

Reb and Rob,

Thanks for crystallizing and reflecting outloud. Much
appreciated.

Regarding the knee lifting or moving forward, most runners
don't lift their knees. You see what I mean if you view them
from the front. The lower leg is always visible. This means
that the lower leg pendulums forwards. In order to do this
the runner must lift their center of gravity to let the leg
swing/pendulum forward.

The knee lift to me means the lower leg go 90 degrees or
more and tucks in behind the thigh. When it is there the
lower leg is not seen. Bend your lower leg back so that it
is at a 90 degree angle with the thigh or parallel to the
ground. Now leave the lower leg at the 90 degree to the
knee. Lift the knee forward and up so that the thigh is now
parallel to the ground. Notice that the lower leg is now
perpendicular to the ground. If the knee lowers, and the
lower leg straightens it will be placed pretty much under
the center of gravity, next to the other foot.

If you will ask one hundred people to lift their knee so the
thigh is parallel to the ground, you will get 70% to 90% of
the people lifting the knee and the hamstring will be
contracted so that the lower leg is not perpendicular to the
ground. I work at getting the people to lift their knee so
that the neuromuscular connection that contracts the
hamstring slight relaxes. After a few lifts or after several
days of someone saying to them at unexpected times: Lift
right knee. Or: Lift Left knee. Their hamstring relaxes and
the lower leg hangs perpendicular to the floor.

With most runners, because of this slightly contracted
hamstring, the lower leg is spring loaded and when it
pendulums forward, it swing the foot in front of the center
of gravity and usually touches on the back of the heel of
the shoe and in front of the center of gravity. This creates
the deceleration.

If you watch a kid on a skateboard, you will see that they
don't pendulum the lower leg forward when they are
skateboarding fast. When their foot pushes off it is either
ball or ball/instantly/front of the heel. There is no
deceleration.

Regarding my belief that the whole body runs and every
movement is such that it balances/counterbalances &
torques/countertorques so that the body runs in a straight
line. Check out Arms: Man the four footed animal
http://www.mindfulness.com/mrb3.asp

Anyway, I have more to read of what the two of you said so
that I can also crystalize my images and mental pictures.
And as Robert said, at times physics and physiological
explanation only serves to confuse the beauty and poetry of
the runner in motion.

A great start at my 9th or 10th year at rec.running and
talking about running form and style.

In article <slrnc75u5b.i28.abuse@panix2.panix.com>, Donovan
Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <060420041111506619%gontang215@sbcglobal.net>,
>Ozzie Gontang wrote:

The exchanges here remind me of some thoughts I want to
crystallize before posting. But in the mean time, a few
bits and pieces.

[snip]

>If you have a model, one should be able to use that model
>to make predictions. One can validate/invalidate the model
>by testing these predictions. The predictions that follow
>from my model appear to be consistent with what we know
>about running. For example, high speed increases knee lift.
>
>If the purpose of knee lift were only to aid cushioning,
>there's no reason to believe that knee lift would increase
>with speed.

Sure there is. Ground impact forces increase with speed
-- subject of a research paper Sam posted and I snarfed
from the web.

It's also a question whether the high speed causes the
knee lift to increase, or vice versa.

>Interestingly, I have found that trying to focus on knee-
>lift during running leads to overstriding -- because it
>causes a delay in foot-plant. One is better off using
>whatever knee lift follows naturally from gait (and it
>will increase naturally as stride length and speed
>increase) instead of exaggerating it. In fact if anything,
>I find it more effective to "avoid" knee lift and focus on
>planting the foot down quickly to keep a good turnover
>(actually, despite the imagery, the end result is still a
>high knee lift)

Getting my ankles up seems to be more useful than thinking
of the knee or on bringing the foot down in distance
running. In sprinting, I focus on driving the foot down.

[snip]

>>>It depends on which frame of reference you're looking at
>>>it from. In
>> the skiiers frame of reference, the arms are moving, but
>> in a stationary observers frame of reference, the arms
>> are stationary while the body moves.
>>
>> Oz: For me the skier's arms are always moving forward;
>> the body passes
>
>That's only true in a grounded frame of reference. In the
>skiiers frame of reference, the arms are not always
>moving forward.

Indeed. Which is why I'm a little puzzled that neither of
you seem to be allowing for the role of the upper body and
arms in balancing.

As far as a general consideration of physics with respect
to running mechanics, the center of mass frame of
reference suggests something regarding what happens at the
foot that is touching down.

If one did a gazelle (antelope?) pronk -- springing from
the ground and holding form fixed from there on -- then
the center of mass moves through a simple parabolic arc
and you come down on your landing foot. Your mass is
fixed, and gravity is fixed. The force required to stop
you from puddling into the ground is then determined
entirely by how long you take to decelerate. If you land
stiff-legged, you decelerate rapidly, so enormous forces.
If you do a long flex of major muscles, it requires far
less force. The length of the flexing is limited by your
stride rate -- you're going to decelerate to zero vertical
motion, and then accelerate back to an upward motion
(i.e., launch in to your next step). As stride rate
increases, or the flight time (stride length) increases,
it's required to apply greater forces in your landing.
(all this is independant of surface, except insofar as a
soft surface could absorb some of the landing forces for
you. But _something_ has to supply those forces.)

That says nothing about moving other body parts as part of
your landing, or flight, process. Up to the time a foot
touches ground, your center of mass moves in that simple
parabola (I'm neglecting wind resistance). Regardless of
what else you do, the center of mass moves on the
parabola. But you can move body parts relative to the
center of mass. If you pull your non-landing leg and both
arms upward (relative to the center of mass), then other
body parts, such as the landing leg must be accelerated
_downward_ (otherwise the center of mass is moved up, and
that's a no-no without a surface to push against). Keeping
the arms fixed and pulling the off leg up means _extra_
force downward on the landing leg.

i.o.w., whoever suggested the knee lift at impact reduced
landing forces doesn't have the physics right. On
the other hand, a runner who is thinking about
smoothly lifting his non-landing leg is liable to
not do a jackhammer landing on his other leg. So
the 'running' may well be right, even if the
physics aren't.

Conflicts like this are why I'm not confident of the value
of physics-style analyses for runners or coaching of
runners.

Donovan Rebbech

In article <107664nm6gbkuea@corp.supernews.com>, Robert Grumbine wrote:
> In article <slrnc75u5b.i28.abuse@panix2.panix.com>,
> Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <060420041111506619%gontang215@sbcglobal.net>,
>>Ozzie Gontang wrote:
>
> The exchanges here remind me of some thoughts I want to
> crystallize before posting. But in the mean time, a few
> bits and pieces.

Thanks for the explanation of the physics -- that was a very
good explanation (the part about the parabolic path etc)

> Sure there is. Ground impact forces increase with speed
> -- subject of a research paper Sam posted and I snarfed
> from the web.

Are these horizontal or vertical forces.

> Getting my ankles up seems to be more useful than
> thinking of the knee or on bringing the foot down in
> distance running. In sprinting, I focus on driving the
> foot down.

Yeah, this is closer to how I try to think of it too. Except
I think of turnover instead of bringing the ankles up, but
they're more or less the same thing.

>>That's only true in a grounded frame of reference. In the
>>skiiers frame of reference, the arms are not always moving
>>forward.
>
> Indeed. Which is why I'm a little puzzled that neither
> of you seem to be allowing for the role of the upper
> body and arms in balancing.

I thought they'd only complicate the issue (because they
don't add anything to the net forward/backward momentum) and
partly because I don't know exactly how it works. I think
the arm movement counterbalances angular momentum at the
hips, but I'm not sure. I think it's somehow tied to hip
rotation anyway.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Robert Grumbine

In article <slrnc774eo.3rg.abuse@panix2.panix.com>,
Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <107664nm6gbkuea@corp.supernews.com>, Robert
>Grumbine wrote:
>> In article <slrnc75u5b.i28.abuse@panix2.panix.com>,
>> Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>>>In article <060420041111506619%gontang215@sbcglobal.net>,
>>>Ozzie Gontang wrote:
>>
>> The exchanges here remind me of some thoughts I want to
>> crystallize before posting. But in the mean time, a few
>> bits and pieces.
>
>Thanks for the explanation of the physics -- that was a
>very good explanation (the part about the parabolic
>path etc)

Glad it came over well. It's hard for me to do those with
words rather than cartoons.

>> Sure there is. Ground impact forces increase with speed
>> -- subject of a research paper Sam posted and I snarfed
>> from the web.
>
>Are these horizontal or vertical forces.

Vertical. Only a normal force can be an impact. Tangential
forces are traction or shearing forces.

>> Getting my ankles up seems to be more useful than
>> thinking of the knee or on bringing the foot down in
>> distance running. In sprinting, I focus on driving the
>> foot down.
>
>Yeah, this is closer to how I try to think of it too.
>Except I think of turnover instead of bringing the ankles
>up, but they're more or less the same thing.

A different example of mental imagery without regard to
the physics. If I get the heels up, my otherwise normal
pull of the leg forward brings it through faster (reduced
moment of inertia), and that give me either a quicker
stride rate, or same stride rate with longer flight time.
Either way, I run faster without feeling like I'm working
a lot harder.

>>>That's only true in a grounded frame of reference. In the
>>>skiiers frame of reference, the arms are not always
>>>moving forward.
>>
>> Indeed. Which is why I'm a little puzzled that neither
>> of you seem to be allowing for the role of the upper
>> body and arms in balancing.
>
>I thought they'd only complicate the issue (because they
>don't add anything to the net forward/backward momentum)
>and partly because I don't know exactly how it works. I
>think the arm movement counterbalances angular momentum at
>the hips, but I'm not sure. I think it's somehow tied to
>hip rotation anyway.

I don't remember if it was Sam or Paul French, or someone
else, who gave a nice explanation of the angular momentum
considerations of hips and arms. But yes, that's part of
what's going on.

Different form question: For distance running, do
people find it better to swing the arms alone, keeping
the shoulders fixed, or to twist the torso
(significantly) as well?

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and
amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo
Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less
appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a
more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Ozzie Gontang

[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the "To,"
"Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

In article <1077f4dsi4m6684@corp.supernews.com>, Robert
Grumbine <bobg@radix.net> wrote:

Robert said:
> A different example of mental imagery without regard to
> the physics. If I get the heels up, my otherwise normal
> pull of the leg forward brings it through faster (reduced
> moment of inertia), and that give me either a quicker
> stride rate, or same stride rate with longer flight time.
> Either way, I run faster without feeling like I'm working
> a lot harder.

Oz replied: This is where the metronome is a wonderful
image. The closer you move the weight to the fulcrum, the
faster the metronome goes. So the closer the heel gets to
the butt, the faster I can bring my thigh through. Once that
bent leg comes through, the faster I need to get the foot
back on the ground to keep the same cadence.

This is how I show people how to run faster at the same
cadence. I can keep the same cadence as a runner going 8 or
9 minutes a mile and increase my speed by minute to two
minutes a mile faster...with the same cadence. I'm leaning
a little more from the ankle, and having to get my knee
through its arc faster so that I can put the foot down
faster. To do that, I am running tall, letting the lower
leg come closer to the hamstring as I bring the knee
forward, and then placing the foot down faster such that I
am landing ball/heel or for some a better description is
midfoot or midsole.

I used the technique in many runs and races. I'm in cadence
with a fellow runner, I maintain the same cadence and pull
away. They come along and because they are taking bigger
strides, they are also decelerating more with each step, as
they are not lifting the knee through. Sometimes I'd turn to
them and say "Tough run for you today" as they attempted to
stay with me. Then I'd gradually continue to pull away or
they would slow down...again the both of us maintaining the
same cadence.

Reb stated:
> >>>That's only true in a grounded frame of reference. In
> >>>the skiiers frame of reference, the arms are not always
> >>>moving forward.
Robert replied:
> >> Indeed. Which is why I'm a little puzzled that
> >> neither of you seem to be allowing for the role of
> >> the upper body and arms in balancing.

Reb replied:
> >I thought they'd only complicate the issue (because they
> >don't add anything
to the net forward/backward momentum) and partly because I
don't know exactly how it works. I think the arm movement
counterbalances angular momentum at the hips, but I'm not
sure. I think it's somehow tied to hip rotation anyway.

Robert replied
> I don't remember if it was Sam or Paul French, or
> someone else, who gave a nice explanation of the angular
> momentum considerations of hips and arms. But yes,
> that's part of what's going on.
>
> Different form question: For distance running, do people
> find it better to swing the arms alone, keeping the
> shoulders fixed, or to twist the torso (significantly)
> as well?

If you watch, you'll notice that the majority of runners do
not let the upper arm (shoulder to elbow) swing forward
freely even a half inch.

Here's a post from 2001 regarding the Total Body Running:

In response to: Arm Never Goes Behind The Body When Running
"Mark Baldwin" <swozzup@hotmail.com> wrote:

> hmmm, didn't quite understand that but I guess I will read
> it again
>
> During my last run I noticed an old squash injury re-
> appear, it feels like a slight muscle pull at the top of
> my left thigh. I could only feel this whilst my left leg
> was behind me and I was about to push off, to ease the
> discomfort I began to twist my torso to ease the degree at
> which my left thigh was stretched, this felt quite
> natural, seemed to increase my stride length and make
> running faster more comfortable.
>
> Just a thought, does anyone else twist their torso whilst
> running or is it all "pointing straight"?

Running Involves The Whole Body Was: Arm Never Goes Behind
The Body When Running Mark,

Thought this might be of some help. It teaching people to
run, I have them picture the body/torso ending below the
ribs. The legs start from the ribs down. So when you run,
you are running with legs that extend in length from the rib
cage to the bottoms of your feet. Seen it this image lets
you begin to realize that your hips move with your thighs.

It martials arts as in running as in throwing the Frisbee,
the pelvis play a key role in transferring the energy from
the ground on which we stand to the upper body or
catapulting the body forward from each planing of the foot.

Three weeks ago, while running in Morley Field we watched
the semifinals of the equilvalent to the Olympics Frisbee
Decathlon.

The event we watched was a race of less than half a mile
around natural obstacles like groves or stands of trees,
with penalty loops if one's Frisbee didn't go through the
target area.

As I watched the amazing accuracy of some of these athletes
with their Frisbee, the judge at one obstacle checkpoint was
talking to us between events. He pointed to one fellow and
said he held the world record for throwing the Frisbee. I
believe it was over 250+ meters. He said he videotaped the
fellow throwing the Frisbee and then analyzed the video
which was shot at 30 frames a second. He said the video
caught only 3 frames of his pelvis twisting which would be
three hundredths of a second. Other people that were good
would be in the range of five hundredths to eight hundredths
of a second.

So the faster the twist/torque of the pelvis the less frames
seen. Translate that to Tiger Woods versus John Daly and
Tiger's speed and range of motion create the same force that
John Daly's power/strength can create.

So to your question: If you run from your legs coming out
from below the ribs, the torso twists in conjunction with
the forward movement of the legs.

Oz

Reb and Rob,

I play with the idea that the knees move in conjunction with
the elbows. Most people would say right knee/left elbow
forward. An image few people play with is the same side:
right knee/right elbow. The right elbow stretches forward
and away from the right knee with each stride.

I play with the idea that the shoulders move in conjunction
with the hips.

The faster I go, the less rotation I create at the shoulders
and hips or I keep the same rotation and have to bring my
arms and legs through faster to keep the foot landing in the
same cadence.

I have people play with crawling on the ground on all fours
and then slowing down. As they slow down the arms and legs
get out of coordination.

Again back in the early 80's that's why I took up TaiChi. It
enabled me to move the entire body slowly as I did the form.
In my minds eye, the idea was total body movement.

Another way of looking at this is that the lats are so
strong that the deltoids have to work against stronger
antagonistic muscles (lats).

Have someone lift their elbows in front of them so the upper
arm is parallel to the ground and the elbows and hands are
perpendicular to the upper arms __|. Make sure the elbows to
hands (lower arm) are parallel and directly in front of the
the shoulder. Have the person hold that position for a few
minutes if they can.

If you hold the lats back, pinch them towards the center of
the pack and then have the person bring their elbows forward
and up, you'll see that their lats won't let the elbows
reach up since the lats are strong...and shortened.

Anyway, let me know what your inquiring minds are
thinking or what you come up with playing with some of
the ideas above.

There are more people thinking about their running form and
style and how to improve it. Especially with the idea that
it is most likely helpful regarding injury prevention.

Again, I suggest that you rent or buy Run Lola Run to
watch Franka Polenta from the side as she runs throughout
the movie.

In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Maintainer -
rec.running FAQ Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est.
1975

Mindful Running: http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-
faq/

Jay Hennigan

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:35:39 +0000, Ozzie Gontang wrote:

> In running the problem is not the hard ground but the
> force at which one lands on the hard ground. In running
> the problem of sprained ankles is due to the overuse
> syndrome of running on flat surfaces. The Flat Surface
> Overuse Syndrome (FSOS pronounced F-Sauce) is a major
> cause of sprained ankles. The muscles of the ankle are
> made to adapt to unevensurfaces and need to be trained
> accordingly.

This makes sense.

> If you've watched a cat jump up to a ledge, there's no
> clump or hard landing since it cushions the landing. You
> or I can run up a set of steps clomping each step or
> quietly on cat like feet.

And the opposite of this is watching or listening to a child
running on a hardwood floor. Quite noisy and shaky for such
a little tyke.

> Also the reason many people sprain their ankles severely
> is because they are used to overstriding in addition to
> the "Flat Surface Overuse Syndrome." (Remember where you
> first saw this term. Shortened to FSOS or pronounced F-
> Sauce) So when they come down on the foot, the whole
> weight of the body comes crashing down on the bent or
> bending everted ankle...and the muscles on the outside of
> the foot (peroneus) are not able to take the overstretch
> and give allowing for the ligaments of the ankle to be
> strained or torn.

What is your recommended technique for running down a hill?
I've been following and lurking here for some times and
thank you for your insight.

Practicing running lightly has helped my endurance and
speed but coming down a hill I always feel as if I'm
running like a herd of elephants. Most of my running is on
trails and uneven surfaces in preparation for ARDF (radio-
orienteering) racing.

Donovan Rebbech

In article <pan.2004.04.08.05.52.02.580170@west.net>, Jay Hennigan wrote:

> Practicing running lightly has helped my endurance and
> speed but coming down a hill I always feel as if I'm
> running like a herd of elephants.

Don't know what Oz will recommend but I recommend a
maintaining good turnover, avoid overstriding. On each
stride, I try to get the front foot down quickly. There's
less knee lift on downhill than on flat or uphill.

Many people seem to overstride downhill, and that
results in inefficiency, increased injury risk and
slower pace. If anything, my stride rate will increase
on a downhill stretch.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Ozzie Gontang

In article <slrnc7ap2p.1bv.abuse@panix2.panix.com>, Donovan Rebbechi
<abuse@aol.com> wrote:

> In article <pan.2004.04.08.05.52.02.580170@west.net>, Jay
> Hennigan wrote:
>
> > Practicing running lightly has helped my endurance and
> > speed but coming down a hill I always feel as if I'm
> > running like a herd of elephants.
>
> Don't know what Oz will recommend but I recommend a
> maintaining good turnover, avoid overstriding. On each
> stride, I try to get the front foot down quickly. There's
> less knee lift on downhill than on flat or uphill.
>
> Many people seem to overstride downhill, and that results
> in inefficiency, increased injury risk and slower pace. If
> anything, my stride rate will increase on a downhill
> stretch.
>
> Cheers,

Oz's short answer: Reb's right: get the front foot down
quickly. There's less knee lift on downhill than on flat
or up hill.

The typical long Oz answer from a number of years ago:

Sean Chester wrote:

I've been running on and off for a while now, whenever time
permits it, and I've come across a real obstacle that I was
hoping someone here could assist me with. When running
downhill, I seem to run a lot slower, and get passed by
nearly everyone else in the race, and then have to try and
get back on pace on the uphill and flats. It doesn't seem
right that I should have more ease with uphill than
downhill. Any suggestions Sean

Here's a repost with a few ideas. Well, I got carried away.
It was sometime back in the winter of '99. Oz

I read Indy's and DownUnder's posts. Then I read the
following 4, and I wrote a magnificent piece on Running
Downhill, only to have my computer crash as I was
transferring some email addresses into the "To" section of
Newswatcher. I gave up for the night, bummed. I come back
today and now there are 21 posts in all. So I read them all
and now am ready to start again.

Running Downhill Is A Downward Diagonal Part 1 A Paean to
Euclid and His Friends: Denny, Phil, Miles, Laurie, BobG,
Laurel & all Rec.Running's philosopher athletes
c. 2000 Austin "Ozzie" Gontang, Ph.D.

When I first got into running I truly pictured my self as
the "Keep On Truckin'" Mr. Natural or the image was sitting
in my dad's '59 Buick Roadmaster as I ran my early
marathons. I was able to do marathons in the 3:20 to 3:30
range in this laid back style.

As I got into thinking about running, and balance, and
gravity and mixed the Bowerman erect running posture with
the Brookes Johnson's forward lean things started to change.
I pictured the lean of the erect posture from the ankles. So
that the posture was always erect but falling forward with
ever so slight a lean of the erect posture, ankle to crown
of the head.

For many people and me included that little forward lean
from the ankles made the difference between doing 3:20's and
going under 3:05 for the marathon.

This is my folklore about downhill running. (1)-see footnote

1. Going down hill while running, I maintain an erect
posture. The downhill is the downward diagonal of a
rectangle.

2. Think geometry (2). The diagonal is longer than the
horizontal base.

3. Think. The hill (the diagonal) is falling away from the
horizontal where you just landed.

4. Think. If you take a normal stride, because the downward
diagonal replaces the horizontal landing surface of
level ground, that normal stride will be an overstride
because your foot lands on the diagonal. And you know
that the diagonal is longer than the horizontal.

5. Think again to drive the point home, it makes sense that
a normal stride length will be an overstride because it
lands on the downward diagonal. The image is your center
of gravity (COG) moves in a line parallel to the
downward slope of the hill.

6. So to make your stride the same as you would on the
horizontal, it is necessary that you to place your foot
down more quickly so as not to overstride.

7. To do that, there's no need to lift up the knee any
higher but there is a need as you bring your knee
forward to get the foot down faster. The elliptical
tracing of the foot from foot stride to the next same-
footed foot strike is a downhill ellipse.

8. If you keep the same lean from ankle to top of the head
as you would on level ground, the falling away of the
hill, increases the lean angle even without leaning.
Again you're thinking about the downward diagonal.

9. Stand at the top of an easy sloped hill. March in place
by lifting your knees up and down. Notice also that
when you march in place lifting your knees, that the
ball of the foot touches first and then the heel.

Lean from the ankle a degree or two and keep your body
erect. Continue to just lift the feet up and down by lifting
your knees an inch or two. That little lean from the ankles
moves you forward since you're going with gravity. When you
put down the lifted foot it is two or three inches ahead of
the other foot but still under your center of gravity.

Your slight lean added to the slope of the hill will cause
you to coast down the hill. If the hill increases in its
slope, you have to put the foot down faster to maintain the
same cadence and all the while all you're doing is lifting
your knees up and down and the hill is running you down it.

"To lean into the hill" often causes the runner to lose
his/her erect posture. The image is one's center of gravity
riding smoothly down the hill on the wheel created by one's
feet landing fast enough so as to create no deceleration or
excessive vertical displacement at each step.

10. In running down hill, if the foot lands under the
center of gravity of the body, the body will continue
to freely fall down the hill. All you have to do is
place the foot down fast enough so there is minimal
vertical displacement of the center of gravity.

Running Downhill Is A Downward Diagonal Part 2 A Paean to
Euclid and His Friends: Denny, Phil, Miles, Laurie, BobG,
Laurel & all Rec.Running's philosopher athletes
c. 2000 Austin "Ozzie" Gontang, Ph.D.

When one overstrides each step is a deceleration and send
the shockwave up the body as the ground doesn't give. Also
landing on the back of the heel of the shoe causes a trigger
effect which slaps the front of the foot down, decelerating
the body even more and increasing the vertical forces to the
foot and leg. Those who have forgotten their geometry and
tell you to lean back as you go down hill are only
increasing your overstride. If you should listen to them
after remembering your geometry, your pain and injuries are
by choice.

11. In running down hill, the idea or image is that you're
sitting on a bicycle seat that rides on the horizontal.
You place your foot down fast enough so that the actual
point of the Center of Gravity of your body, if you
followed it down the hill would be a line parallel to
the slope of the hill. Think sliding down a snow
covered slope as opposed to sliding down a set of
stairs on your butt.

12. Picture all down hill running as if your body is being
lifted upward as the slope of the hill goes downward.
You have Plastic Man rubber legs so there is never a
jolt or jarring of your body because your feet always
land under your center of gravity. (3)

13. Jolting or jarring or landing on the back of the heel
going down hill means: "Yep, overstride."

To show you the image so that you can feel where your body
should be.

a. Stand with your feet together.

b. Keep the weight on the left foot. Place the right
foot forward so that the right heel lightly touches
the ground. Notice that you can pick up the right
heel and put it down as the center of gravity is over
the left foot.

c. Put your feet back together again.

d. Again, keep the weight on the left foot. Place the right
foot behind you so that the ball of the right foot
lightly touches the ground. The ball of the foot will be
6 to 8 inches behind and parallel to the left heel.
Notice that you can pick up the right ball of the foot as
the center of gravity of your body is over the left foot.

"b" is an overstride since your center of gravity is behind
the lead foot.

"d" is what proper running is about. Your center of gravity
is above the weight bearing foot and the other leg is behind
your center of gravity.

If you continue your erect posture with the weight always
over the front foot, you begin to see how good running form
and style is addressed.

Once again. Marching in place is where it all begins.
Remember the broom handle balanced in the palm of your hand.
If it falls a millionth of a degree and you go at the same
speed and the same direction it is falling, you are using
gravity to get you from here to there.

Your body is the broom handle. The earth is the palm of the
hand. The lean of the broom is the lean of your body that is
erect from ankle to crown of the head. As the body fall
forward you bring the back foot forward and under your body
fast enough to keep you from falling "down."
(4)

Please print this out. While it is correct, it may take me
and you many months to figure out what I've just said.

Oz

Footnotes:

5. I want to thank Laurel Amberdine for her comments
to my query:

> I realize that I just look at things differently and want
> to make sense
> out of what people know that just ain't so. I need
> feedback, Gang, or
I'll
> never know how obtuse my correct but incomprehensible
> writings are. For me to hurry up and catch you, I need to
> know how far off I am.

Laurel said:

I re-read a bunch of saved Ozzie-responses, trying to figure
out why some of them are so hard to understand.

First- it usually starts out with someone asking about a
problem. Like, "My <body part> hurts. What can I do?"

Ozzie answers. The answer includes, AT LEAST: description of
all the parts involved, with explanation of word-origins.
Detailed analysis of the whole <body part> system, and how
it could be having trouble. Then ways to test to see if you
actually have this problem (usually several.) Description of
how to fix this problem, including stretches (several) and
visualization/modification to try while running. Then, a
philosophical comment or two on how everything works
together, so it may be some non-running issue causing the
problem. And the disclaimer that you might have some other
problem entirely.

(whew)

I think it's a lot more new information than most people can
grasp all at once. Most people are hoping for an answer like
"Oh, you have 'Weird Foot Syndrome.' You need Extra-Normal
Shoes and to do the wiggly-toe stretch. That'll clear it
right up." The asker wasn't quite up for a whole new way of
thinking about the problem.

Now, I like Ozzie's answers, and I don't think I want them
changed, baffling as they sometimes are. :) Anyway, some
tips to make writing clearer (for anyone)--

-Keep it small. Small words, small sentences, small
paragraphs. Go back and cut out anything extraneous.

-Don't include non-essential information. If you want to add
something fun, and informative (but not essential) separate
it away from the important info. [1]

-Be careful with non-specific pronouns like 'it' and 'that'.

-Use clear punctuation and spacing. Reading text from a
computer monitor can be especially confusing, and the white
space helps.

6. Geometry Greek origin: gaia=land and metrein=to measure.

As St. George said: "you are called to be poet,
philosopher, artist, saint and athlete. But first and
foremost, be a good animal." As the Athenians swept down
from the hillsides onto the Plains of Marathon
overrunning the hapless Persians, the Athenians practiced
their geometry, remembering that running downhill was a
downward diagonal. The hoplites proceeded to kick the
"scis" out of the Persian army. (Scio,-ire: to know;
scis, 2nd person/present tense: you know)

7. Your body rejoices and sings the praises of Euclid
through dance, for running is a dance.

8. "Running is fall and catching yourself gracefully.
World records in running are set by the use of gravity
and keeping up with the fall as fast as possible from
start to finish without falling down -be it a hundred
meters or a marathon." GAPO

--
In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Maintainer -
rec.running FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-
newsgroup/rec/rec.running.html Director, San Diego Marathon
Clinic, est. 1975

Mindful Running http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp

Dot

Jay Hennigan wrote:
>
> Practicing running lightly has helped my endurance and
> speed but coming down a hill I always feel as if I'm
> running like a herd of elephants. Most of my running is on
> trails and uneven surfaces in preparation for ARDF (radio-
> orienteering) racing.

In addition to what's already been said, a couple other
thoughts for trails. If you're running steep trails (say
greater than 20% slope), you might want to keep your eyes
parallel to slope (or somewhere between that and horizontal)
so you can find the best line down a hill - plan ahead and
stay ahead of the game. Use peripheral vision for closer
viewing. If you're running at night on downhills, your light
will hit nothingness unless you tilt it down or have your
eyes parallel to slope. But don't actually look at your feet
- you need to see ahead. I'm still really klunky on trail
downhills at night.

I've found I have to tilt forward a little on steep slopes
to maintain traction (need normal force to surface to
maintain some traction). If you stay vertical and feel your
feet sliding out from underneath you while running downhill
(or end up on butt), you'll know those are the slopes where
you might need to adjust a little. Where I am, it tends to
happen on ice or gravel on top hard packed dirt (like
running on marbles).

Enjoy :)

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Grandepatzer

Ozzie Gontang <gontang215@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<050420040835389884%gontang215@sbcglobal.net>...
<slice>

Wow. That was quite the tome. Did you also write War
and Peace?

If you want to run softly, best weigh as little as possible.
Gravity is a tough customer, and beating it requires a
little more than lifting a knee. That's why I say, unload,
unload, unload!

Jay Hennigan

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 04:52:37 +0000, Ozzie Gontang wrote:

[A very good, and somewhat lengthy article stating that
leaning forward while running downhill was beneficial,
describing the geometry of the diagonal created between the
slope of the hill and the vertical component of the stride
being longer than the stride itself, and the suggestion to
lean forward when running downhill.]

I've been practicing this technique and while still rather
clumsy, it helps considerably.

Of course, being a curious sort and somewhat of a geek, I
began to wonder if the converse is true. And, having run
down hills testing Ozzie's theory, I found myself needing to
run back up. If the physics maps logically, one should try
to lean backwards slightly when running up hill.

Trying this with the marching-in-place exercise causes one
to move backwards, and trying it on a real hill doesn't
seem to work either. If anything, leaning slightly forward
when running uphill seems to work best for me, with a
shortened stride in the horizontal plane to compensate for
the upward diagonal.

Doug Freese

Jay Hennigan wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 04:52:37 +0000, Ozzie Gontang wrote:
>

> Of course, being a curious sort and somewhat of a geek, I
> began to wonder if the converse is true. And, having run
> down hills testing Ozzie's theory, I found myself needing
> to run back up.

This is a disease, take two aspirins and call the doctor. :)

> If the physics maps logically, one should try to lean
> backwards slightly when running up hill. Trying this with
> the marching-in-place exercise causes one to move
> backwards, and trying it on a real hill doesn't seem to
> work either.

It doesn't! On the downhill you are using gravity to your
benefit assuming you are not leaning so far forward to screw
up your form. If you lean backwards on the uphill gravity
will not be your friend. As long as the uphill is runable
the ideal form is short steps and stay perpendicular to the
horizon. Just like running on the level, a nice erect body
with your weight over your hips. If I was running to your
your side I should be able to take a chain saw and slice you
in half from the top of your head down.

> If anything, leaning slightly forward when running uphill
> seems to work best for me, with a shortened stride in the
> horizontal plane to compensate for the upward diagonal.

To the contrary leaning in is not good form. You want your
weight over your hips. All the vectors pointing at you feet.
And yes, you will se lots of people leaning on the ups. Not
only does it cause excess pressure on you back but it is
less efficient.

While not related to hills per se but of general interest:
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0122.htm

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com