D
Dot
Guest
Doug Freese wrote:
> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Do you have pics?
>
>
> Just nudes?
>
Nude trees?
>
>>I've observed the same thing, but if I hike with the
>>same stride length that I run uphill, I'll be using a calendar for 5
>>miler. I find a longer (but not too long) stride while hiking uses
>>some different muscles, which is a purpose of walk break.
>
>
> I contend that stride cadence should be close whether running or hiking.
> In either case if your stride is too long you are inefficient and
> wasting energy. It's a little bit of guilt trip that while hiking you
> need a larger stride.
Thanks for your thoughts. Since what I'm doing now seems to be working
for me, I don't think I'm going to do any experimenting this direction
for now - esp. since the longer stride works different muscles and helps
one tight spot I've got. Also, when I tried fast walking with small
steps a couple years ago, it kept tightening muscles. I use the walk
break to loosen things. But maybe one day that'll change.
<we agree on the WMRT - the ones I just snipped>
>
>>For curiosity, which of the following would you consider good/med/bad
>>form?
>>
>>http://home.att.net/~akrunning/Hills/index0002.html
>>(upper left picture - this was fairly typical posture in that race)
>
>
> Too long a stride and to compensate he is pushing off with his hands.
> His back is damn near parallel to the hill - not ideal form in my book.
Actually, most of these were more upright than I've seen in the past -
at least going up the hill the first time. That is, even though these
were bent over, I've seen them even more bent over, like the jr men mtn
running last year.
>
>
>
>
> I think they both work when perfected but I'm old school and tell myself
> that better form during the race will conserve energy needed for the
> tail end of the race.
>
> As tough as this race is per step I wonder what their form would look
> like if they had to do the course 2 or 4 times.
Actually, I think the pics of them coming up the backside of Lazy
http://home.att.net/~akrunning/Hills/img_8907.sml_9.jpg
or the ADN links show that although some of that is just sheer
steepness that the ADN links show better. [As a side note, I have to
hand it to these photographers that cover these races - both newspaper
and tv - they gotta hike the trail too. I passed the tv guy on my way up
(he was sweating up a storm) and made a point of thanking them for their
coverage and let him know the viewers appreciated it.]
I'm guessing it would depend what they've trained for. Obviously, if
they only trained for 14 miles/9k ft and you send them round again, they
may be struggling, at best - unless this was a training run for an ultra
runner. Most (except the winner) looked tired after the 2nd trip back
over Lazy - just over the top. But almost all seemed to be running
reasonably well down a little ways (enough time to recover) - except for
a couple who were having some downhill issues (not sure if it was toes,
knees, or quads, but they were in pain with about 2500 ft descent to go,
including the steeper stretches).
One of the guys on the ultra list did this (I don't know him to see him,
but I saw the last n runners finish, and he was listed in the last n.
He's 60 or so. Another guy was 70.) He ran it last year and followed up
with the Resurrection Pass 100 the following weekend. (possibly this
year also, but I haven't seen RP100 results) It took him a while, but
hey, that's a tough 6 hr (approx) race followed by a 24+ hr, iirc.
Anyway, thanks for your insights.
Dot
--
"I used to be real gung-ho. Now I try to look at it as a day hike with a
sense of purpose."
-Harlow Robinson, winner 2004 Matanuska Peak Challenge (14mi, 9000ft up
and down)
> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Do you have pics?
>
>
> Just nudes?
>
Nude trees?
>
>>I've observed the same thing, but if I hike with the
>>same stride length that I run uphill, I'll be using a calendar for 5
>>miler. I find a longer (but not too long) stride while hiking uses
>>some different muscles, which is a purpose of walk break.
>
>
> I contend that stride cadence should be close whether running or hiking.
> In either case if your stride is too long you are inefficient and
> wasting energy. It's a little bit of guilt trip that while hiking you
> need a larger stride.
Thanks for your thoughts. Since what I'm doing now seems to be working
for me, I don't think I'm going to do any experimenting this direction
for now - esp. since the longer stride works different muscles and helps
one tight spot I've got. Also, when I tried fast walking with small
steps a couple years ago, it kept tightening muscles. I use the walk
break to loosen things. But maybe one day that'll change.
<we agree on the WMRT - the ones I just snipped>
>
>>For curiosity, which of the following would you consider good/med/bad
>>form?
>>
>>http://home.att.net/~akrunning/Hills/index0002.html
>>(upper left picture - this was fairly typical posture in that race)
>
>
> Too long a stride and to compensate he is pushing off with his hands.
> His back is damn near parallel to the hill - not ideal form in my book.
Actually, most of these were more upright than I've seen in the past -
at least going up the hill the first time. That is, even though these
were bent over, I've seen them even more bent over, like the jr men mtn
running last year.
>
>
>
>
> I think they both work when perfected but I'm old school and tell myself
> that better form during the race will conserve energy needed for the
> tail end of the race.
>
> As tough as this race is per step I wonder what their form would look
> like if they had to do the course 2 or 4 times.
Actually, I think the pics of them coming up the backside of Lazy
http://home.att.net/~akrunning/Hills/img_8907.sml_9.jpg
or the ADN links show that
although some of that is just sheersteepness that the ADN links show better. [As a side note, I have to
hand it to these photographers that cover these races - both newspaper
and tv - they gotta hike the trail too. I passed the tv guy on my way up
(he was sweating up a storm) and made a point of thanking them for their
coverage and let him know the viewers appreciated it.]
I'm guessing it would depend what they've trained for. Obviously, if
they only trained for 14 miles/9k ft and you send them round again, they
may be struggling, at best - unless this was a training run for an ultra
runner. Most (except the winner) looked tired after the 2nd trip back
over Lazy - just over the top. But almost all seemed to be running
reasonably well down a little ways (enough time to recover) - except for
a couple who were having some downhill issues (not sure if it was toes,
knees, or quads, but they were in pain with about 2500 ft descent to go,
including the steeper stretches).
One of the guys on the ultra list did this (I don't know him to see him,
but I saw the last n runners finish, and he was listed in the last n.
He's 60 or so. Another guy was 70.) He ran it last year and followed up
with the Resurrection Pass 100 the following weekend. (possibly this
year also, but I haven't seen RP100 results) It took him a while, but
hey, that's a tough 6 hr (approx) race followed by a 24+ hr, iirc.
Anyway, thanks for your insights.
Dot
--
"I used to be real gung-ho. Now I try to look at it as a day hike with a
sense of purpose."
-Harlow Robinson, winner 2004 Matanuska Peak Challenge (14mi, 9000ft up
and down)