Welcome To Fetcheveryone

Our awesome training log doesn't hide its best features behind a paywall. Search thousands of events, get advice, play games, measure routes, and more! Join our friendly community of runners, cyclists, and swimmers.
Click here to get started
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here

"Physics of falling says professional athletes are running wrong" - article.

4 watchers
Sep 2015
10:09am, 30 Sep 2015
6731 posts
  •  
  • 0
GordonG
article in New Scientist newscientist.com

I'm sure there'll be plenty of Fetchies with opinions about this...
J2R
Sep 2015
10:50am, 30 Sep 2015
163 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
It's always interesting to read stuff like this. But I have to say I would tend to give a little more credence to science which attempts to explain why the world's most successful runners run the way they do, what it is about what they do which works, rather than suggesting that they've got it all wrong.
Sep 2015
10:59am, 30 Sep 2015
6919 posts
  •  
  • 0
simbil
It's a flawed argument - you cannot use 'angular momentum' in one part of the gait without correcting it in another - so it gives no net gain when running on the flat.

There were arguments about this for about a billion pages on the efficient running thread :)
Sep 2015
11:15am, 30 Sep 2015
6732 posts
  •  
  • 0
GordonG
i assumed there would be, simbil, which is why i ducked after posting the link! :-)
Sep 2015
11:16am, 30 Sep 2015
6728 posts
  •  
  • 0
Binks
With these kinds of things elite runners tend to already be years ahead of what is explained by science. Like in the case of the Kenyans and the Altitude, there was something unexplained going on making the Kenyans better than everyone else. It became known in time that they happened to live high up and this helped a little bit.

Running isn't going to improve from what some guy in a lab has done. There are millions of runners out there and they are a huge optimisation experiment it itself which leads to the best methods. Best thing to do it to look at those who are already the fastest.
Sep 2015
11:21am, 30 Sep 2015
19978 posts
  •  
  • 0
eL Bee!
I only focuses on ONE aspect of the gait cycle, which is what adds to the confusion.
An awful lot happens at the same time, and people tend to think in terms of static models which, although useful, are limited in their usefulness.

And the arguments on the MERS were way too complex for your average joe to get their heads around!
Sep 2015
11:25am, 30 Sep 2015
19979 posts
  •  
  • 0
eL Bee!
Besides - the 'physics of falling' actually shows that the top elite runners are actually doing it better than everyone else!! :)
That and genetics, obviously!
And protein...... apparently ;)
Sep 2015
11:27am, 30 Sep 2015
2066 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
Couldn't agree more about use of statics to explain dynamics el bee. People seem to not fully understand or forget newton's laws of motion.
Sep 2015
1:25pm, 30 Sep 2015
30136 posts
  •  
  • 0
Nellers
"The angle of the dangle is directly proportionate to the lust of the thrust". Is it that one, Ninky Nonk, or am I confusing it with Ball's Law?;-)
Sep 2015
1:55pm, 30 Sep 2015
5764 posts
  •  
  • 0
The_Saint
quackwatch.com

About This Thread

Maintained by GordonG
article in New Scientist https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28246-physics-of-falling-says-profes...

Related Threads

  • batshit
  • science

Back To Top