shoes on the cover of Fixx's book

Run Run Away » asics running shoes » shoes on the cover of Fixx's book

Question:

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

Doug, Thanks. Found some great articles that Owen wrote about research on form, economy, etc. More grist for the mill. Ozzie

Response:

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

Response:

<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!

Response:

[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.

Response:

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"

Response:

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.

Remind me *never* to go running with you Doug. Tim

Response:

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. Remind me *never* to go running with you Doug.

It would certainly help lower the heart hate…. might affect your speed a bit though. cheers. — David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most insecure people are the ones you see, putting other people down constantly."

Response:

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

Keep the same lean as on level ground. Simply, the steeper the hill the shorter the step. The Uphill diagonal image is that I need to place my foot down quicker as the diagonal comes sooner than the horizontal. In down hill the downward diagonal comes after going through the horizontal with foot placement. In the downhill the diagonal creates the lean or increases the lean as the ground falls away. So the idea is that I have to place the foot down faster so as not to overstride. Uphill same lean as on level, just shorten the stride which allows the lean to stay the same. 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/

Response:

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.

Response:

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/

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 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:

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: 1. 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,

Response:

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

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 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/

Response:

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/

Response:

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

Response:

[[ 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.

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.

Response:

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:

(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. 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. 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,

Response:

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/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 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.

Response:

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/

Response:

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: (1) knee lift independent of running speed (because vertical forces aren’t affected) (2) 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/

Response:

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

Response:

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.

Response:

[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]] 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 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. a. 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. b. 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 i. Lift up the planted foot as quickly as you are stomping down on the cup. ii. 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.

Run Run Away