| |
Main
Date: 11 Oct 2007 11:46:16
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Economy of Motion
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/fashion/11Best.html?ref=health
EXCERPTS
Economy can make the difference between being fast and being slow,
between winning and losing in swimming to skiing, cycling to speed
skating, running to rowing.
But economy is baffling. It seems to be physiological, but it is not
clear what exactly is involved. Is it an ability of muscles to use
energy, an ability to use a variety of muscles in concert, an ability
of nerves to activate certain muscles for a task while allowing other
muscles to relax, an ability of nerves to fire in near-perfect
patterns? Or is it all of these things in combination?
While many exercise physiologists believe, or hope, that economy
improves with training, they confess that it's not clear what kind of
training or how much it takes to make a difference.
They know that standard training programs, which emphasize speed and
distance, improve the other key factors in performance: VO2 max and
the anaerobic, or lactate, threshold, an indicator of how intensely a
person can exercise.
But economy is more of a mystery. In fact, there are only a few
documented cases of athletes whose economy improved. One was Paula
Radcliffe, the British marathoner. Every year for 11 years, starting
in 1992, she increased her running economy by about 1 to 3 percent. In
the end, she ran 40 seconds to a minute faster per mile, without
changing how much oxygen she took in.
...
But, Dr. Coyle said, "whether an average person running an hour a day
would experience the same benefit is the million-dollar question."
Researchers are finding that easy assumptions about exercise economy
just don't hold up under rigorous study.
Take the idea that you can tell who is an economical runner or cyclist
by watching the person perform. Not true, researchers say. The only
way to know is with tests in a lab.
Dr. Daniels showed this in a study in which he videotaped runners.
Then he sent the videos to coaches and biomechanics experts, and asked
which were the more economical runners.
"They couldn't tell, no way at all," he said.
But can runners become more economical if they change their form? The
surprising answer seems to be no, said Dr. Krahenbuhl. In fact, he
said, every study that asked what happened after runners changed their
natural form found that running economy declined.
It may take a long time for a change of form to result in better
economy, Dr. Daniels suggested.
...
Maybe economical runners or cyclists or swimmers are simply gifted in
general, researchers speculated. Perhaps whatever these athletes turn
to, they will be economical.
That, Dr. Daniels discovered, is not true.
He recently studied runners and measured their economy when they ran.
Then he measured it when they cycled, when they walked uphill at three
different inclines on a treadmill, when they stepped up and down on a
step, and when they cranked an ergometer with their arms. There was no
relationship between being economical at one activity and being
economical at another.
...
Dr. Coyle finds that the most economical cyclists have an abundance of
a particular type of muscle fiber, so-called slow twitch. It is not
known whether other types of muscle can convert to slow twitch with
training. But, he said, it may be that after years of training, nerves
are directed to allow more leg muscles to participate in pedaling. The
result might be greater riding economy.
"You might wind up changing the way your neuromuscular system is
wired," Dr. Coyle said. "It is a controversial area, but it makes
sense."
With swimmers, Dr. Coyle said, speed depends a great deal on
technique, which can improve to a certain extent with coaching and
training. Swimmers must overcome the drag of the water, and anything
that interrupts the fluid dynamics of their motion will cause them to
decelerate.
But physiological economy can also have a huge effect in swimming. Dr.
Daniels studied a woman who won an Olympic gold medal even though her
VO2 max was only average for a recreational athlete and was very low
for an elite athlete. Her gift? She wasted little energy, and that
skill more than compensated.
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 12:28:34
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Economy of Motion
|
On Oct 12, 1:21 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>
> Did any of you guys actually *read* at least the quotes? Experienced
> trainers were proved to not be able to tell if you are economical or
> not. You have to make scientific test. Awful looking form often
> happens to be very economical and improved form often means loss of
> economy.
I do know that when I'm trying to impress some girls at the track I
will revert to "classic form," which slows me down, actually...I'm
actually faster doing my unimpressive looking modest steps, modest
width strides, and steady little squirrel's cadence...it takes a lot
of energy to do that classic running form when I want to show off, and
it takes even more energy to actually make that form work well in
terms of speed-up or speed maintenance for all of a few yards!
Ditto for cycling, too, with its classic "hunched-back" form....
> C'mon. It's not so hard to actually read several quotes, is it?
I think they simply disagreed with the conclusions nonetheless, based
on personal observations. (Of course, the article was talking
precisely about how personal observations seemed so lacking.)
> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 12:14:26
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Economy of Motion
|
On Oct 12, 2:57 pm, "Tony S." <email_to...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>
> I think that it's been established that certain fast twitch fibers can be
> endurance trained, but they will never completely change to the
> high-endurance slow twitch.
You know, IIRC, I think "Nutrient Timing" by the chairman of
Kinesiology at Texas U stated that muscles are extremely adaptable and
-- again, IIRC (this is at the end of the book; I'll have to look it
up at home tonight) -- slow-twitch/fast-twitch are
interchangeable...????
> As far as running economy goes, simple changes can sometimes lead to an
> improvement in economy. I remember running my first road races many years
> ago, and switching to what felt like a slower shuffle stride actually made
> it easier to keep up with the runners around me, though it didn't feel at
> all natural to me at first. I would find myself running naturally, then I
> would remember and switch to the shuffle stride and make things easier on
> myself. Now it feels more natural, but I don't feel the same power in my
> strides as when I was younger and more of a sprinter (well duh).
Interesting. I know that "kick" is important to speed, and it comes
naturally enough when I feel energized and am focused to "attack" a
stretch of distance, but otherwise trying to "remember" to kick seems
to result in my being slower, actually...same goes for furiously
swinging my arms like a locomotive -- it happens natural enough
sometimes, but other times when I try to consciously implement it for
a speed gain it seems to backfire -- though other times it still seems
to work...?!?!
> -Tony
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 18:57:59
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Economy of Motion
|
"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1192128376.569953.296850@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/fashion/11Best.html?ref=health
...
> Dr. Coyle finds that the most economical cyclists have an abundance of
> a particular type of muscle fiber, so-called slow twitch. It is not
> known whether other types of muscle can convert to slow twitch with
> training. But, he said, it may be that after years of training, nerves
> are directed to allow more leg muscles to participate in pedaling. The
> result might be greater riding economy.
>
> "You might wind up changing the way your neuromuscular system is
> wired," Dr. Coyle said. "It is a controversial area, but it makes
> sense."
I think that it's been established that certain fast twitch fibers can be
endurance trained, but they will never completely change to the
high-endurance slow twitch.
As far as running economy goes, simple changes can sometimes lead to an
improvement in economy. I remember running my first road races many years
ago, and switching to what felt like a slower shuffle stride actually made
it easier to keep up with the runners around me, though it didn't feel at
all natural to me at first. I would find myself running naturally, then I
would remember and switch to the shuffle stride and make things easier on
myself. Now it feels more natural, but I don't feel the same power in my
strides as when I was younger and more of a sprinter (well duh).
-Tony
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 08:35:28
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Economy of Motion
|
On Oct 11, 9:16 pm, "D Stumpus" <dstumpus_N...@mindspring.com > wrote:
>
>
> I take issue with this. I am very uneconomical as a runner. When in my
> prime, my vo2 max was 76.4 when not in my best shape, yet I could only
> muster a 2:37 marathon. Your typical 2:14 marathoner has a vo2 max of 76.
> I probably would have been a better cyclist, but I enjoy running much more
> than riding.
It's counter-intuitive, but that's what the article says the good
doctor turned up.
> I bounce a lot and take relatively longer steps. I can tell immediately by
> running side-by-side with other runners how economical they are. A good
> friend with only a 62 vo2 max could run a minute faster than me in a 10k,
> and was comical running alongside of him: He was as smooth and level as an
> electric motor or a V12 engine, and I was a roughly idling Harley by
> comparison.
>
> Twice I've come upon a super-efficient runner going easy (7-8 minute pace)
In my own case, I'm not sure what to make of efficiency...when I used
to run around the Central Park reservoir, we joggers/runners would
often wind up in an ersatz, impromptu race of sorts, and there have
been times when I thought I was efficient, and was still slow, while
other times I only realized I was being efficient (smooth motion,
mentally focused, etc.) from beating the other guy...one time I was so
into it I almost didn't feel my legs, if you can believe that...I've
mentioned this episode a few times over the past few years of checking
in on these fitness newsgroups...it was incredible, and I daresay I
ran most efficiently that one time, basically my legs disappeared from
underneath me, all I felt was my arms swinging, as if wings flapping
furiously -- I didn't even feel out of breath, incredibly enough, even
though I beat the other guy (and we exchanged knowing winks
afterwards)...I was so efficient it wasn't even about my legs or lungs
anymore, but all I felt were my arms!
> I've also competed against a couple of national class guys -- in one case a
> 28:xx 10k runner passed me in a 50 mile relay (our team won, but he beat me
> in our leg), and his feet were barely leaving the ground running 6:15 miles
> uphill, zipping by in a super efficient quick-step shuffle. I felt like I
> had square wheels in comparison.
>
> I have some pictures of me running a 2:44 marathon about a year after I
> started running, side by side with my super efficient friend, and the
> difference in efficiency is obvious just by looking at the photos. I'll try
> and dig them up and post a url.
That would be interesting, yes.
> If you're inefficient and run side-by-side with an efficient runner, it is
> very obvious.
I wonder why all those coaches and biomechanics experts
failed...perhaps there are other cues other than purely visual ones
when one is actually running side-by-side...or perhaps that's too
subjective and one merely thinks the other is being efficient since
the other is beating oneself...?
> -- Dan
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 18:47:49
From:
Subject: Re: Economy of Motion
|
On Oct 11, 2:46 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/fashion/11Best.html?ref=health
>
> EXCERPTS
>
> Economy can make the difference between being fast and being slow,
> between winning and losing in swimming to skiing, cycling to speed
> skating, running to rowing.
>
> But economy is baffling. It seems to be physiological, but it is not
> clear what exactly is involved. Is it an ability of muscles to use
> energy, an ability to use a variety of muscles in concert, an ability
> of nerves to activate certain muscles for a task while allowing other
> muscles to relax, an ability of nerves to fire in near-perfect
> patterns? Or is it all of these things in combination?
>
> While many exercise physiologists believe, or hope, that economy
> improves with training, they confess that it's not clear what kind of
> training or how much it takes to make a difference.
>
> They know that standard training programs, which emphasize speed and
> distance, improve the other key factors in performance: VO2 max and
> the anaerobic, or lactate, threshold, an indicator of how intensely a
> person can exercise.
>
> But economy is more of a mystery. In fact, there are only a few
> documented cases of athletes whose economy improved. One was Paula
> Radcliffe, the British marathoner. Every year for 11 years, starting
> in 1992, she increased her running economy by about 1 to 3 percent. In
> the end, she ran 40 seconds to a minute faster per mile, without
> changing how much oxygen she took in.
>
> ...
>
> But, Dr. Coyle said, "whether an average person running an hour a day
> would experience the same benefit is the million-dollar question."
>
> Researchers are finding that easy assumptions about exercise economy
> just don't hold up under rigorous study.
>
> Take the idea that you can tell who is an economical runner or cyclist
> by watching the person perform. Not true, researchers say. The only
> way to know is with tests in a lab.
>
> Dr. Daniels showed this in a study in which he videotaped runners.
> Then he sent the videos to coaches and biomechanics experts, and asked
> which were the more economical runners.
>
> "They couldn't tell, no way at all," he said.
>
> But can runners become more economical if they change their form? The
> surprising answer seems to be no, said Dr. Krahenbuhl. In fact, he
> said, every study that asked what happened after runners changed their
> natural form found that running economy declined.
>
> It may take a long time for a change of form to result in better
> economy, Dr. Daniels suggested.
>
> ...
>
> Maybe economical runners or cyclists or swimmers are simply gifted in
> general, researchers speculated. Perhaps whatever these athletes turn
> to, they will be economical.
>
> That, Dr. Daniels discovered, is not true.
>
> He recently studied runners and measured their economy when they ran.
> Then he measured it when they cycled, when they walked uphill at three
> different inclines on a treadmill, when they stepped up and down on a
> step, and when they cranked an ergometer with their arms. There was no
> relationship between being economical at one activity and being
> economical at another.
>
> ...
>
> Dr. Coyle finds that the most economical cyclists have an abundance of
> a particular type of muscle fiber, so-called slow twitch. It is not
> known whether other types of muscle can convert to slow twitch with
> training. But, he said, it may be that after years of training, nerves
> are directed to allow more leg muscles to participate in pedaling. The
> result might be greater riding economy.
>
> "You might wind up changing the way your neuromuscular system is
> wired," Dr. Coyle said. "It is a controversial area, but it makes
> sense."
>
> With swimmers, Dr. Coyle said, speed depends a great deal on
> technique, which can improve to a certain extent with coaching and
> training. Swimmers must overcome the drag of the water, and anything
> that interrupts the fluid dynamics of their motion will cause them to
> decelerate.
>
> But physiological economy can also have a huge effect in swimming. Dr.
> Daniels studied a woman who won an Olympic gold medal even though her
> VO2 max was only average for a recreational athlete and was very low
> for an elite athlete. Her gift? She wasted little energy, and that
> skill more than compensated.
I used economy of my reading motion when I deleted your post.
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 18:16:19
From: D Stumpus
Subject: Re: Economy of Motion
|
"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com > wrote
> Take the idea that you can tell who is an economical runner or cyclist
> by watching the person perform. Not true, researchers say. The only
> way to know is with tests in a lab.
I take issue with this. I am very uneconomical as a runner. When in my
prime, my vo2 max was 76.4 when not in my best shape, yet I could only
muster a 2:37 marathon. Your typical 2:14 marathoner has a vo2 max of 76.
I probably would have been a better cyclist, but I enjoy running much more
than riding.
I bounce a lot and take relatively longer steps. I can tell immediately by
running side-by-side with other runners how economical they are. A good
friend with only a 62 vo2 max could run a minute faster than me in a 10k,
and was comical running alongside of him: He was as smooth and level as an
electric motor or a V12 engine, and I was a roughly idling Harley by
comparison.
Twice I've come upon a super-efficient runner going easy (7-8 minute pace)
and asked if he was elite, and each runner had a 10k pr in the 29's.
I've also competed against a couple of national class guys -- in one case a
28:xx 10k runner passed me in a 50 mile relay (our team won, but he beat me
in our leg), and his feet were barely leaving the ground running 6:15 miles
uphill, zipping by in a super efficient quick-step shuffle. I felt like I
had square wheels in comparison.
I have some pictures of me running a 2:44 marathon about a year after I
started running, side by side with my super efficient friend, and the
difference in efficiency is obvious just by looking at the photos. I'll try
and dig them up and post a url.
> Dr. Daniels showed this in a study in which he videotaped runners.
> Then he sent the videos to coaches and biomechanics experts, and asked
> which were the more economical runners.
If you're inefficient and run side-by-side with an efficient runner, it is
very obvious.
-- Dan
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 07:03:13
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Economy of Motion
|
"D Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote in message
news:BeednQLL4px5V5PanZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> Take the idea that you can tell who is an economical runner or
>> cyclist
>> by watching the person perform. Not true, researchers say. The only
>> way to know is with tests in a lab.
>
> I take issue with this. I am very uneconomical as a runner. When in
> my prime, my vo2 max was 76.4 when not in my best shape, yet I could
> only muster a 2:37 marathon. Your typical 2:14 marathoner has a vo2
> max of 76. I probably would have been a better cyclist, but I enjoy
> running much more than riding.
>
> I bounce a lot and take relatively longer steps. I can tell
> immediately by running side-by-side with other runners how economical
> they are.
I agree. We have some really good runners(Kenyan's, Moroccan's) in the
area that come for a local elite running camp. I would once in while get
to share the track with them. I would watch in awe as they did 60
second quarters with impeccable form. Some of them were three tall while
others were six foot and to a person they were poetry in motion. I think
good form is very visible.
I also think bad form is obvious. In many of my races when I see people
in front of me I can tell by their form whether I'll pass them.
An additional reflection from my last race. It was a 50 and 50k with
the 50k starting an hours and a half later. This allowed a few of the
front runner 50 mile folks to pass me in the later stage of my race. The
thing I immediately noticed was their form. They not only passed me like
I was standing still but with the grace and power of an ocelot. ;) As
they passed by me I asked if they were in the relay and they said no,
the 50. I tripped watching those guys run off into the sunset.
-Doug
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 17:21:08
From: Andrzej Rosa
Subject: Re: Economy of Motion
|
Dnia Fri, 12 Oct 2007 o 13:03 GMT Doug Freese napisał(a):
>
> "D Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>
>> I take issue with this. I am very uneconomical as a runner. When in
>> my prime, my vo2 max was 76.4 when not in my best shape, yet I could
>> only muster a 2:37 marathon. Your typical 2:14 marathoner has a vo2
>> max of 76. I probably would have been a better cyclist, but I enjoy
>> running much more than riding.
>>
>> I bounce a lot and take relatively longer steps. I can tell
>> immediately by running side-by-side with other runners how economical
>> they are.
>
> I agree. We have some really good runners(Kenyan's, Moroccan's) in the
> area that come for a local elite running camp. I would once in while get
> to share the track with them. I would watch in awe as they did 60
> second quarters with impeccable form. Some of them were three tall while
> others were six foot and to a person they were poetry in motion. I think
> good form is very visible.
>
> I also think bad form is obvious. In many of my races when I see people
> in front of me I can tell by their form whether I'll pass them.
Did any of you guys actually *read* at least the quotes? Experienced
trainers were proved to not be able to tell if you are economical or
not. You have to make scientific test. Awful looking form often
happens to be very economical and improved form often means loss of
economy.
C'mon. It's not so hard to actually read several quotes, is it?
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 22:55:02
From: sycochkn
Subject: Re: Economy of Motion
|
"D Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote in message
news:BeednQLL4px5V5PanZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> Take the idea that you can tell who is an economical runner or cyclist
>> by watching the person perform. Not true, researchers say. The only
>> way to know is with tests in a lab.
>
> I take issue with this. I am very uneconomical as a runner. When in my
> prime, my vo2 max was 76.4 when not in my best shape, yet I could only
> muster a 2:37 marathon. Your typical 2:14 marathoner has a vo2 max of 76.
> I probably would have been a better cyclist, but I enjoy running much more
> than riding.
>
> I bounce a lot and take relatively longer steps. I can tell immediately
> by running side-by-side with other runners how economical they are. A
> good friend with only a 62 vo2 max could run a minute faster than me in a
> 10k, and was comical running alongside of him: He was as smooth and level
> as an electric motor or a V12 engine, and I was a roughly idling Harley by
> comparison.
>
> Twice I've come upon a super-efficient runner going easy (7-8 minute pace)
> and asked if he was elite, and each runner had a 10k pr in the 29's.
>
> I've also competed against a couple of national class guys -- in one case
> a 28:xx 10k runner passed me in a 50 mile relay (our team won, but he beat
> me in our leg), and his feet were barely leaving the ground running 6:15
> miles uphill, zipping by in a super efficient quick-step shuffle. I felt
> like I had square wheels in comparison.
>
> I have some pictures of me running a 2:44 marathon about a year after I
> started running, side by side with my super efficient friend, and the
> difference in efficiency is obvious just by looking at the photos. I'll
> try and dig them up and post a url.
>
>> Dr. Daniels showed this in a study in which he videotaped runners.
>> Then he sent the videos to coaches and biomechanics experts, and asked
>> which were the more economical runners.
>
> If you're inefficient and run side-by-side with an efficient runner, it is
> very obvious.
>
> -- Dan
>
Thank you for posting this. It prompted me to do an internet search for how
to walk more efficiently. I am going to try some of them out on my next
walk. I will probably judge how it works by my heart rate monitor. If I can
do an hour at a heart rate of less than 80 BPM for 15 minute miles then I
have figured it out.
Bob
|
|
