Larry! Biomechanics

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Dakitty, Sep 15, 2003.

  1. Dakitty

    Dakitty Guest

    Here's some links for you to read and chew on :)

    http://www.math.tulane.edu/~ljf/ce2.pdf http://www.sportsci.org/news/biomech/skeptic.html
    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0208022
    http://www.frams.alife.pl/common/Komosinski_FramsticksSimul_VW2000.pdf
    http://www.eup.ed.ac.uk/newweb/journals/Sports/
    http://www.education.ed.ac.uk/cis/swim/WSSC2002/r-z.html
    http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2003/0103/johnson.htm (Talks about how holding one's head too
    high, assymetrical body rolls and unilateral breating all contribute towards shoulder impingement)
    http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/swimming/

    see, I told you it's the toes:
    http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v407/n6804/a bs/407582a0_r.html
    (okay, I'm joking about this one)

    http://www.aptn.pt/artigos_tecnicos/Toussaint.2.pdf among other things has head high vs. head low
    effect on drag lab tests http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/biomech/news.htm

    Well, there's lots more, but this will keep you busy for a while, and probably give you ideas to
    search for more.

    Oh, and here is a relatively inexpensive book about fluid dynamics: "An Introduction to Fluid
    Dynamics" by G. K. Batchelor, Amazon has it and another one: "Introduction to Fluid Mechanics" by
    James A. Fay - this one is more expensive.

    Have Fun !
     
    Tags:


  2. Ian Ross

    Ian Ross Guest

    "DaKitty" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    <snip>

    Interesting links - thanks for those!

    > Well, there's lots more, but this will keep you busy for a while, and probably give you ideas to
    > search for more.
    >
    > Oh, and here is a relatively inexpensive book about fluid dynamics: "An Introduction to Fluid
    > Dynamics" by G. K. Batchelor, Amazon has it and another one: "Introduction to Fluid Mechanics" by
    > James A. Fay - this one is more expensive.

    To go with those, a great book is Milton Van Dyke's "Album of Fluid Motion", which illustrates a lot
    of the points in some of the drier fluid mechanics books with beautiful pictures. Probably worth
    locating a library copy rather than buying it, but it's very good.

    Ian.
     
  3. In article <[email protected]>, "DaKitty" <[email protected]> writes:

    >http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2003/0103/johnson.htm (Talks about how holding one's head too
    >high, assymetrical body rolls and unilateral breating all contribute towards shoulder impingement)

    I know Dr. Johnson, author of the above article). I met Dr. Johnson (of Stanford U) at a USA
    Swimming sportsmedicine meeting in Colorado Springs in April of 2001. At that meeting, I gave a 10
    minute presentation on shoulder friendly swimming technique, which was unchallenged by Dr. Johnson
    and by all the other physicians, orthopedic surgeons, and physical therapists present. It presented
    the exact same concepts published in the two Swimming Technique articles and then on the ASCA
    website. I read the above article when it was originally published in January, 2003, in the journal
    Physician and Sportsmedicine (which I have received every month for more than 20 years). I quoted
    from this very article in a previous post on r.s.s. earlier this summer. You may also note that Dr.
    Johnson recommends entering the water pinky first instead of thumb first, to maintain external
    rotation. This was part of my presentation and Dr. Johnson came up to me personally after my
    presentation and told me that he agreed with my presentation, and specifically about the importance
    of maintaining external rotation, which then made it way into the above article. This is of
    importance, as it centrally relates to the issues of body roll and head lifting.

    I am quite certain that Dr. Johnson would have no disagreement at all with me. He was writing an
    article for physicians out in the community who see recreational swimmers (and not expert elite
    swimmers). You simply do not understand the biomechanics of shoulder pain in swimming (as shown by
    your assertion that it is caused by problems related to the deltoid muscle, which is so rare as to
    be a zebra among the hoofbeats of North American horses), and you particularly do not understand
    them in the context of the swimmer in question, which I reported in my original post.

    Bilateral breathing is of help in avoiding impingement injury in the average recreational swimmer
    for the following reason. It is harder to maintain external rotation on the non-breathing side than
    on the breathing side, if one is rolling more to the breathing side and less to the non-breathing
    side. It can certainly be done (and is done, at the elite level, by lopers who use this technique).
    One can (and should) consciously "feather" the recovering hand on the non-breathing side to maintain
    external rotation. Or one can raise the head and forequarter (as suggested by Fagan as a reason why
    "lopers"...who rotate very little to the non-breathing side...do it) to assist the non-breathing
    side arm clear the water. These are, however, sophisticated techniques and, again, the article was
    just written to provide busy primary care physicians with some practical guidance on things to
    suggest. If an average community swimmer is having symptoms of shoulder impingement on the
    non-breathing side, then having that swimmer roll more to the non-breathing side (or to bilaterally
    breathe) will help that swimmer (as would "feathering" and/or raising the non-breathing shoulder in
    the style of many lopers).

    However, the swimmer in my post had the opposite problem. She had symptoms of impingement on the
    BREATHING side. Which she was relieving by rolling more to the breathing side and less to the
    non-breathing side. This will help a lot to lessen impingement, pain, and injury. But the coach
    advised her to rotate more to the non-breathing side, which makes it harder to stay in external
    rotation on the breathing side during the pull. Which is bad.

    With regard to the head lift, again, it is addressed to community physicians, seeing a diverse range
    of community swimmers. There is a right way and wrong way to raise the head. The method which is
    used by lopers actually REDUCES impingement and does not increase it. This follows from easy to
    explain biomechanics (I could easily show you on an articulated skeleton with muscle origins and
    insertions mapped out). But you don't have to take my word for it; there is actually a formal
    reference from the peer review medical literature which explains how _proper_ head lifting is
    beneficial and not harmful. Penny,J and Smith, C. Canadian Journal of Applied Sportsmedicine
    5:195-202, 1980. Entitled Prevention and Treatment of Swimmer's Shoulder or something very similar.

    With regard to PASSIVE drag being increased by head lifting, this is not what happens in ACTIVE
    swimming with PROPER headlifting. True, when you push off the wall and streamline, there is less
    drag keeping the head down instead of lifting it up. But, with active swimming, a proper head lift
    counteracts leg sinking torque of the pull and therefore reduces drag, rather than increasing
    it. As discussed in the Yanai article which I have referenced often.

    Look, you are trying to say that the greatest female distance swimmer in history (Janet Evans) who
    has the oldest records in swimming and who lifted her entire head out of the water with each and
    every stroke of her 400 and 800 meter freestyle swims was increasing her drag with her head lifts?
    Just like the _ _ instructor who said on this newsgroup that Ian Thorpe would swim faster if only
    his head didn't bob up and down. Everyone else, before me, has just ignored all of the head lifting
    and asymmetric swimming and loping which is going on all around us in the world of swimming. Just
    ignored it. You are very good at coming up with literature and web sources. Find me some published
    research or even some un-published musing on why it is that Evans lifts her head and Munz (currently
    the greatest active American female distance swimmer) lifts her head and why Hackett (greatest
    distance swimmer in history) lopes (swims so asymmetrically and rotates much more to the breathing
    side than to the non-breathing side and has markedly asymmetric hand entry timings) and where anyone
    has ever studied the relationship between kicking effectiveness and stroke length and swimming
    performance. Perhaps you think that all these questions are not worthy of consideration. Perhaps you
    think it's inappropriate to formulate hypotheses and discuss them on the r.s.s. bully pulpit. At the
    USA Swimming sportsmedicine meeting, I was the only one in the shoulder pain session who even talked
    about the relationship between technique and impingement. Everyone else was talking physical therapy
    and surgery. But the latter are treatments and my way is prevention. Which virtually no one in the
    world of swimming was aware of before I started to blabber all about it on
    i.u.s more than 5 years ago. Why it's bad to internally rotate on recovery and entry. But word is
    getting around and things are changing for the better. I claim credit for not a little of it.

    You are good at coming up with technical references. I'd be very interested in the technical
    references which, we have heard so often, prove that bumblebees can't fly.

    Larry Weisenthal

    Certitude is poison; curiosity is life
     
  4. Dave Coleman

    Dave Coleman Guest

    okay, i'm actually going to read through these and try to figure out what they mean:

    "DaKitty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > http://www.math.tulane.edu/~ljf/ce2.pdf
    This is a paper about how nematodes propel themselves in water. Also covered are motion via cilia
    and flagella. It describes purely undulatory motion, which humans don't use, at very low reynolds
    numbers (on the order of 1). It briefly turns to the topic of 2 cm long leeches: "In this case, the
    Reynolds number based upon wavelength and wavespeed is about 1000 - inertial effects are
    significantly more important than viscous effects." Reynolds number for humans is on the order of
    1000000: (1000 kg/m^3 * 5/3 m/s * 3/2 m ) / 10^-3 kg/m/s = Rn for a 1.5m person swimming a 50m in
    30 seconds

    > http://www.sportsci.org/news/biomech/skeptic.html
    an article about the lift v. drag question, basically saying that we don't know. Kind of
    interesting, actually :)

    > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0208022
    Another article on sperm - this one determining the optimal sperm number for undulatory, flagella
    based propulsion. (the 4th root of length^4 * frequency * transverse viscous force/stiffness).
    Again, at low reynolds numbers that are somewhat inapplicable due to the small effect viscous forces
    have on humans.

    > http://www.frams.alife.pl/common/Komosinski_FramsticksSimul_VW2000.pdf
    Not accessible

    > http://www.eup.ed.ac.uk/newweb/journals/Sports/
    No article, home page of the Sports Biomechanics journal. Contents indicate the articles may be of
    interest, but, alas, they seem to want money to order them.

    > http://www.education.ed.ac.uk/cis/swim/WSSC2002/r-z.html
    a list of abstracts of papers on various swimming topics.

    > http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2003/0103/johnson.htm (Talks about how holding one's head too
    > high, assymetrical body rolls and unilateral breating all contribute towards shoulder impingement)

    > http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/swimming/
    the Swimming Science Journal "The complete Swimming Science Journal no longer is available online as
    a free web site."

    > see, I told you it's the toes:
    > http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v407/n6804/a bs/407582a0_r.html
    > (okay, I'm joking about this one)

    >
    > http://www.aptn.pt/artigos_tecnicos/Toussaint.2.pdf among other things has head high vs. head low
    > effect on drag lab tests
    Among other things has head high vs. head low effect on PASSIVE drag. while streamlining with the
    head between the arms. I somehow doubt Larry disputes that the head should be facing down during the
    streamline.

    > http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/biomech/news.htm
    An article about the interplay between the AIS biomechanics deptarment and the aussie swim team,
    avoiding any mention of what the results were.

    Okay, that's the one bite you get. You're a troll. And a particulary bad one. I don't agree with
    everything Larry says, but at least he has the knowledge to explain the background of his claims.
    You seem to have searched google for the words "biomechanics" and "swimming" and returned a bunch
    of random documents. Some of them don't exist, some of them are just general journal contents
    pages, and some of them simply have no bearing on anything above the cellular level. I don't even
    know if you understand the papers you threw up - my guess is you don't, or you wouldn't be
    spamming us with links to papers dealing with scales where viscous forces are of serious concern.
    You're being sarcastic and condescending to somebody who quite obviously knows much more about
    the subject matter than you. Hell, I think _I_ probably know more about the subject than you -
    I've been swimming competitively since the age of 8, and I'm pretty strong in the physical
    sciences. If your post was an attempt at refutation by obscurity, it failed. If it was an attempt
    to belittle Larry's knowledge of biomechanics and fluid dynamics, it also failed. All it did was
    prove that you have no actual authority, but are only interested in winning an internet pissing
    match, which is even more obvious now than in your previous posts in which you take pride in
    having the last petty word. Get over yourself, and go troll somewhere else.

    Oh, and use your real name. Everyone else here does. Because we're interested in discussion,
    discourse and other people, not racking up wins by simply responding ad naseum with random crap.

    Dave
     
  5. Donal Fagan

    Donal Fagan Guest

    On 21 Aug 2003 20:00:59 GMT, [email protected] (Larry Weisenthal) wrote:

    >You are good at coming up with technical references. I'd be very interested in the technical
    >references which, we have heard so often, prove that bumblebees can't fly.

    Now Larry, when I cited conflicting studies, you accused me of scientific nihilism. You've quoted
    Yanai-san ad infinitum, so don't get bent out of shape when someone else does the same.

    Donal Fagan AIA [email protected]'Fagan.com (Anglicise the name to reply by e-mail)
     
  6. Dakitty

    Dakitty Guest

    "Larry Weisenthal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, "DaKitty" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > >http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2003/0103/johnson.htm (Talks about
    how
    > >holding one's head too high, assymetrical body rolls and unilateral
    breating
    > >all contribute towards shoulder impingement)
    >
    <big fat snip>

    /thinks to self... Oh my! I think I found Mr. Right.
    Mr. Alwaysious Right. /end thinks to self

    Yo, Mr. Larry Wisenstain You missed my point, the posted stuff was FYI and learning and, ahem,
    enlightenment. Not for debate. Sorry, I didn't read it. I lost interest in debates with no basis
    in reality.

    Want to debate a real thesis, go to grad school. You can probably join a masters swim team at the
    university too, and get a good knowledgeable coach, test your theories on him/her, where you can
    show it all in practice. It would be more intellectually satisfying then filibustering a newsgroup.

    PS. You're gonna give yourself carpal tunnel, or some other repetitive injury typing all this. Whose
    fault is that gonna be? You're Totally Immersed in this [pun intended].
     
  7. Dakitty

    Dakitty Guest

    "Ian Ross" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "DaKitty" <[email protected]> writes:
    > >
    > <snip>
    >
    > Interesting links - thanks for those!
    >
    > > Well, there's lots more, but this will keep you busy for a while, and probably give you ideas to
    > > search for more.
    > >
    > > Oh, and here is a relatively inexpensive book about fluid dynamics: "An Introduction to Fluid
    > > Dynamics" by G. K. Batchelor, Amazon has it and another one: "Introduction to Fluid Mechanics"
    > > by James A. Fay - this one is more expensive.
    >
    > To go with those, a great book is Milton Van Dyke's "Album of Fluid Motion", which illustrates a
    > lot of the points in some of the drier fluid mechanics books with beautiful pictures. Probably
    > worth locating a library copy rather than buying it, but it's very good.
    >
    > Ian.

    Thanks :)

    Yea, that book is very neat. You can get some interesting images when you search google too :)
     
  8. Scott Lemley

    Scott Lemley Guest

    Hey, Dave. Ease up man. I don't think our Tiger is a troll. She sounds pretty thoughtful and
    articulate to me.

    Two words - John Heenan. There was a troll. We're talking apples and oranges.

    Regards,

    Scott
     
  9. Dakitty

    Dakitty Guest

    "Donal Fagan" <[email protected]'Fagan.com> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On 21 Aug 2003 20:00:59 GMT, [email protected] (Larry Weisenthal) wrote:
    >
    > >You are good at coming up with technical references. I'd be very interested in the technical
    > >references which, we have heard so often, prove that bumblebees can't fly.
    >
    > Now Larry, when I cited conflicting studies, you accused me of scientific nihilism. You've quoted
    > Yanai-san ad infinitum, so don't get bent out of shape when someone else does the same.

    Yea, I said yesterday, he can dish it out, but isn't really good at taking
    it.Interrrresting, huh? ;)

    >
    > Donal Fagan AIA [email protected]'Fagan.com (Anglicise the name to reply by e-mail)

    You an Architect? Cool! My mom is an architect. One of the things I do is architectural and
    engineering related 3D illustration and simulations :)
     
  10. Pat

    Pat Guest

    x-no-archive:yes

    juvenile striking back. That's all it is. either argue logically or go outside and play with the
    rest of the kiddies.

    Pat in TX
     
  11. Chris

    Chris Guest

    [email protected] (Scott Lemley) pondered, puzzeled, prognosticated (perhaps even premeditated),
    and then, in a very wise voice, sed: :

    >Hey, Dave. Ease up man. I don't think our Tiger is a troll. She sounds pretty thoughtful and
    >articulate to me.

    Scott, *you* are thoughtful and articulate. Read a post of your own writing. Then read a post of
    DaKitty's (other then the one(s) where she seems to be "coming on" to you--Get a private room,
    kitty!). One will reflect substance in a thougthful and reasoned manner. The other will come off as
    self-righteous, condescending, hypocritical, reactionary and vacuous.

    You can decide whose is whose. :)

    (At least that's how the come off to me, but then again, i've lost my internet service for the past
    three days, so i've been hit over the head full-force with that whole "wrongheaded" "debate" in one
    solid hammer blow.)

    --
    chris

    "Nothing is real."
     
  12. Scott Lemley

    Scott Lemley Guest

    Hi Chris.

    The whole "USA is wrongheaded" debate in one shot? You need to lay down and put a cool washcloth
    over your eyes. I admit I've had my fun with Larry, though I hope it's seen as poking fun at him in
    a good natured way. Where we disagree, I THINK we agree to disagree.

    In our new Tiger's defense I think there's room for both good spirited debate and a bit of fun
    poking even to the point of the deflation of egos (where possible). I suppose the male ego is fairly
    fragile though we're all pretty safely hidden away in our own caves and no real damage is ever done.
    Except perhaps to the thin skinned. I'm not sure we could EVER hurt the female ego. And I mean that
    in a kind way. I've hurt one of my female swimmer's feelings on occasion, though, on the whole,
    girls are soooo tough. I love coaching women. (Whoops,I don't want to get off on a male:female
    swimmer theme, you know, "buoys" are from Uranus and "gulls" are from Neptune thing).

    Anyway, I've been contributing to rss for a number of years and I come and go. The main players are
    pretty predictible so I kinda like new voices and am willing to give anyone the time and space to
    settle in.

    Why I remember when Larry and I first went at it . . . whew! He was one tough customer. He called me
    to task for wanting to keep the coach-parent relationship at arms length. But that's a story for
    another time.

    Take care.

    Regards,

    Scott
     
  13. Dakitty

    Dakitty Guest

    "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > x-no-archive:yes
    >
    > juvenile striking back. That's all it is.

    Actually, it's sarcasam. You do know what sarcasam is.

    >either argue logically

    You're a day late. I already did, till Larry became illogical.

    > or go outside and play with the rest of the kiddies.
    >
    > Pat in TX

    Sure Daddy-o

    See, with your last comment, you opened yourself to the identical comeback: "Either argue logically,
    or go out and play with the rest of the kiddies."

    Did you know that condescending doesn't actually make you superior, it just gives you a false
    feeling of superiority, instant gratification style. Wanna demonstrate some real superiority, buckle
    up and stay out of the bickering that doesn't revolve around you. Unless, of course, you wish to
    escalate it by adding your own dose of juvenility.

    I know, I know, you thought you were so smart and proper when you wrote that post, hoping to put me
    in a right place. It never occurred to you that you were doing the same thing that you were trying
    to reprimand me for doing.

    Sure, you wanna play one-up with me, just to see how obnoxious you're capable of being, I'll play,
    it's not that hard. It's your turn now.
     
  14. Dakitty

    Dakitty Guest

    "Larry Weisenthal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > In the present case, Kitty just lists a whole bunch of websites, without stating exactly what is
    > the conclusion that I'm supposed to be reaching
    from
    > each.

    *sigh*
    [ Iknew it, I forgot to tell you to exhale! ]

    Sorry, I though it may be interesting reading for you, and maybe educational too.

    You need to slow down on the conclusions bit. You slide off to a conclusion faster than ice-cream
    slides off a hot griddle.You're gonna hurt yourself one day doing that.

    Okay, here's your homework... Go read ALL the links I posted, then find another 20 links with
    similar topics (this is elective research) Read them too.

    Contemplate them for a month. Then pick up a book on philosophy, and learn to debate all sides of an
    argument. Contemplate that for another month (while doing the boring kickboard kicking drills).

    Then do some real world testing, and keep the diary of the data.

    Then write an essay about what you discovered. With scientific proof, based on math, physics and
    chemistry.

    Oh, and take a class on college level critical thinking and logic, I think you can find one at a JC.
    You may need a little bit of remedial work there.
     
  15. Donal Fagan

    Donal Fagan Guest

    On 22 Aug 2003 01:15:07 GMT, [email protected] (Larry Weisenthal) wrote:

    >To my knowledge and rememberance, whenever I've cited a study, I have explained what the study was
    >supposed to be saying and concluding.

    That's actually funny when you think about it.

    >I understand why you are saying what you are saying (in your case, if I'm quoting you correctly,
    >you basically made the statement that studies like Yanai's weren't all that helpful, just because
    >science is often contradictory and controversial - or words to that effect. That IS nihilistic.

    No, I said that *one* study is not necessarily definitive. Several studies led many, many swim gurus
    to teach lift, sculling and S-curve stroking for over a decade. Now everyone is shamefacedly
    creeping back to drag. Saying that one study is not definitive is not nihilistic, it is pragmatic.

    > ... scathing sarcasm on a scale I've never before seen in my life,

    Don't you proofread your own posts?

    >1. Achieve balance through positioning the spine, and not the head and chest.

    Mine are all connected.

    Donal Fagan AIA [email protected]'Fagan.com (Anglicise the name to reply by e-mail)
     
  16. Pat

    Pat Guest

    x-no-archive:yes

    >
    > Oh, and take a class on college level critical thinking and logic, I think you can find one at a
    > JC. You may need a little bit of remedial work
    there.
    >
    >
    It seems as if your arguments are so lame that all you can do is pull out some ad hominem attacks.
    If your arguments were valid, you wouldn't need to do this. Did he hurt your feelings or
    something?

    Pat in TX
     
  17. Dakitty

    Dakitty Guest

    "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > x-no-archive:yes
    >
    > >
    > > Oh, and take a class on college level critical thinking and logic, I
    think
    > > you can find one at a JC. You may need a little bit of remedial work
    > there.
    > >
    > >
    > It seems as if your arguments are so lame that all you can do is pull
    out
    > some ad hominem attacks. If your arguments were valid, you wouldn't need
    to
    > do this. Did he hurt your feelings or something?
    >
    > Pat in TX

    No, not mine. I observed him doing it to others. Including claiming that those tear-down tactics are
    part of scientific principles.

    Wanted to see how he likes them on his own skin. I think I'm pretty much done with that exercise.

    People tearing down others in the name of science, while pushing junk science and misinformation is
    actually a huge pet peeve of mine. I tend to get into force feeding them some of their own medicine.
    I know, it's not nice.

    I'll behave now.
     
  18. Dakitty

    Dakitty Guest

    "Dave Coleman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > You're being sarcastic and condescending to somebody who quite obviously knows much more about
    > the subject matter than you. Hell, I think _I_ probably know more about the subject than you -
    > I've been swimming competitively since the age of 8, and I'm pretty strong in the physical
    > sciences. If your post was an attempt at refutation

    I wasn't trying to trying to refute anything. I do recall trying to give Larry links to read, as
    food for thought. let me make it easy on you and quote myself: "Here's some links for you to read
    and chew on :) ...links... Well, there's lots more, but this will keep you busy for a while, and
    probably give you ideas to search for more."

    Afterall, larry asked for some of that infotmation. I suppose you must have missed that post.

    As for you inability to view certain information, it's either you connection or your browser. I was
    able to access them all.

    > obscurity, it failed. If it was an attempt to belittle Larry's knowledge of biomechanics and fluid
    > dynamics, it also failed.

    Actually, he has asked some questions, and the links had relevant information to the questions he
    asked. I'm sorry if that information made you, or anyone else feel inept in any way. It was intended
    to be informative.

    >All it did was prove that you have no actual authority,

    It wasn't intended to prove anything, and if it didn't, it had served it's purpose.

    > but are only interested in winning an internet pissing match, which is even more obvious now than
    > in your previous posts in which you take pride in having the last petty word. Get over yourself,
    > and go troll somewhere else.

    Sounds like you're getting pissy. I hope getting that off your chest mede you feel better.

    > Oh, and use your real name. Everyone else here does. Because we're interested in discussion,
    > discourse and other people, not racking up wins by simply responding ad naseum with random crap.

    Sounds like you're getting petty too. Oh well, it's rather understandable.

    You know, instead of bullying, it's much easier to killfile. It's a rather simple and very
    elegant solution. It won't hurt my feelings, I promise. Save yourself the aggravation, ya know!
    It's not worth it.

    Well, I hope you feel better soon.
     
  19. Donal Fagan

    Donal Fagan Guest

    On 23 Aug 2003 00:45:46 GMT, [email protected] (Larry Weisenthal) wrote:

    >Supporting this is the one and only published study which relates to this issue (the now-famous
    >Yanai paper).

    Actually, Yanai-san begins the paper by mentioning several previous studies: Gagnon and MontPetit
    1981, Hay 1993, Kreighbaum and Barthels 1996, Pendergast et al 1977, Chatard et al 1990, McArdle et
    al 1986, McLean and Hinrichs 1998, Zamparo et al 1998

    all of which he summarizes as:

    "A swimmer who tends to sink in the static position receives an increased drag force when swimming
    and has to increase the kicking effort necessary to elevate the legs to maintain the whole body
    horizontal alignment."

    So Yanai's is hardly the only study to be considered. In fact he is challenging the status quo.

    Having said that, I find Yanai's description of the leg-sinking torque caused by arm stroking to be
    intuitively convincing. I do not find his postulation of a leg-raising torque convincing because he
    tested only swimmers that kick hard, he found a wide variation in the results among those that kick
    hard and he didn't really measure the swimmers themselves, just rough topological constructs with
    estimated masses and buoyancies.

    Donal Fagan AIA [email protected]'Fagan.com (Anglicise the name to reply by e-mail)
     
  20. Dakitty

    Dakitty Guest

    "chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (Scott Lemley) pondered, puzzeled, prognosticated (perhaps even premeditated),
    > and then, in a very wise voice, sed: :
    >
    > >Hey, Dave. Ease up man. I don't think our Tiger is a troll. She sounds pretty thoughtful and
    > >articulate to me.
    >
    > Scott, *you* are thoughtful and articulate. Read a post of your own writing. Then read a post of
    > DaKitty's (other then the one(s) where she seems to be "coming on" to you--Get a private room,
    > kitty!). .

    Careful, your substance is showing here.

    >One will reflect substance in a thougthful and reasoned manner. The other will come off as
    >self-righteous, condescending, hypocritical, reactionary and vacuous.

    Are you one of those people who thinks if a female says hi, she's coming on to you? I'll have to
    remember to not be nice to you, so you don't misinterpret it.
     
Loading...
Loading...