The Running Form Thread

[Bare Lee]

Yes. Perceived motion increases as a function of socioeconomic status.

This would explain why lower socioeconomic orders are often ahead of their time in terms of fashion and language use, as spatial movement and time operate in inverse proportion to one another. If we could fall-run at the speed of light, we would live forever.

You're not familiar with the field of sociocultural physics?

Unfortunately, it is no longer fashionable in anthropological circles. Perhaps if there were more barefoot anthropologists a la Lieberman . . .

 

[Last Place Jason]

Yes. Perceived motion increases as a function of socioeconomic status.

This would explain why lower socioeconomic orders are often ahead of their time in terms of fashion and language use, as spatial movement and time operate in inverse proportion to one another. If we could fall-run at the speed of light, we would live forever.

You're not familiar with the field of sociocultural physics?

Unfortunately, it is no longer fashionable in anthropological circles. Perhaps if there were more barefoot anthropologists a la Lieberman . . .

The difficulty of running at the speed of light should be obvious- we'd have to lean so far, our heads would be below our feet. Otherwise you're correct. We could live forever.

Too bad sociocultrural physics doesn't make a comeback... we really need more research on things like Earthing and magnet therapy in various populations worldwide.

 

[barefootandagile]

That explains the movement of air patterns and the coriolis effect, but does nothing to explain how or why the effect could affect a runner.

I thought it could be used to explain the rotation of the hip and the amount of energy needed to move the foot from one ground contact point to another. Since the foot is essentially a weight at the end of pendulum, it's motion would somehow enduce a vert weak coriolis effect. The same deal could happen with arm swing. I'm not enough of a physicist to fully understand how that affect would take place, but I'm pretty sure it would be too weak to affect movement or efficiency.

If Romanov is referring to anything related to THE coriolis effect (due to the spinning Earth), it would be idiotic.

Dr. Romanov and I have never had a discussion about corilios effect. He does speak about it in his book though o can't locate mine at the moment.

 

[NickW]

We're almost exactly on the 45th parallel.

Good god man, we ARE living parallel lives or whatever it was that you said in another thread. I drive a half hour south and I could stand on the 45th parallel.

 

[randicoot]

#5. Pane 3: The Coriolis effect has absolutely nothing to do with running. In fact, this is one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard... it far surpasses the "gravity is responsible for forward motion" in regards to scientific integrity.

I agree about the coriolis effect. Even if there is some way to think of the body or the legs as spinning, the idea that it helps you "pull" seems the opposite to what the effect is about.

As for "gravity is responsible for forward motion" being a dumb idea, well, can I try one more thought experiment?

Imagine a rod standing upright on the ground. Tilt the rod just enough so that it falls over. It's falling, right? Now before it falls all the way over, say when it has only fallen 5 - 20 degrees, the top of the rod has moved more sideways than it has down. It's in effect falling sideways. If you have two rods joined by a flexible joint at the top and you have one of them magically move forward (with the same initial lean) to prop up the other before it falls too far, the situation can repeat. You get motion in one direction and you get acceleration since gravity is a constant force. Now replace the rods with the human body and replace the magic with muscles and tendons--you get a person running. It seems to me that gravity can be used for forward motion. I'm not saying that's the only thing that's moving us forward, but it seems silly not to be aware of this free energy.

 

[Bare Lee]

I agree about the coriolis effect. Even if there is some way to think of the body or the legs as spinning, the idea that it helps you "pull" seems the opposite to what the effect is about.

As for "gravity is responsible for forward motion" being a dumb idea, well, can I try one more thought experiment?

Imagine a rod standing upright on the ground. Tilt the rod just enough so that it falls over. It's falling, right? Now before it falls all the way over, say when it has only fallen 5 - 20 degrees, the top of the rod has moved more sideways than it has down. It's in effect falling sideways. If you have two rods joined by a flexible joint at the top and you have one of them magically move forward (with the same initial lean) to prop up the other before it falls too far, the situation can repeat. You get motion in one direction and you get acceleration since gravity is a constant force. Now replace the rods with the human body and replace the magic with muscles and tendons--you get a person running. It seems to me that gravity can be used for forward motion. I'm not saying that's the only thing that's moving us forward, but it seems silly not to be aware of this free energy.

Ask yourself: How did the rod get to its original position, standing upright on the ground, and how does it get back up there after it has fallen? That's where you need your magic for this idiosyncratic understanding of gravity to work. See also: http://canute1.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/problems-with-pose/

P.S., I'm not sure, but I don't think the Coriolis effect works on such a small scale, no matter the object. Hence the derision for those who use it to explain swirling toilet bowl water.

 

[Last Place Jason]

I agree about the coriolis effect. Even if there is some way to think of the body or the legs as spinning, the idea that it helps you "pull" seems the opposite to what the effect is about.

As for "gravity is responsible for forward motion" being a dumb idea, well, can I try one more thought experiment?

Imagine a rod standing upright on the ground. Tilt the rod just enough so that it falls over. It's falling, right? Now before it falls all the way over, say when it has only fallen 5 - 20 degrees, the top of the rod has moved more sideways than it has down. It's in effect falling sideways. If you have two rods joined by a flexible joint at the top and you have one of them magically move forward (with the same initial lean) to prop up the other before it falls too far, the situation can repeat. You get motion in one direction and you get acceleration since gravity is a constant force. Now replace the rods with the human body and replace the magic with muscles and tendons--you get a person running. It seems to me that gravity can be used for forward motion. I'm not saying that's the only thing that's moving us forward, but it seems silly not to be aware of this free energy.

What Lee said. While it seems to you that gravity is providing free energy, you're actually expending energy to counteract the effects of gravity.

I'll offer the same challenge I posted on my blog:

First, point me toward any published study that supports the premise that gravity can provide the energy needed to run. Even an abstract would suffice.

Second, if running is a controlled fall that is fueled by gravity, it should be able to be described as an equation. Please provide said equation.

Third- point me toward an actual physicist that can make an argument supporting the theory that gravity can provide the energy needed to run. I’m not looking for a coach that is claiming to use physics to explain the theory… I’m looking for trained physicists that actually understand the effects of gravity.

Thus far, nobody has provided any of the three.

 

[Last Place Jason]

Ask yourself: How did the rod get to its original position, standing upright on the ground, and how does it get back up there after it has fallen? That's where you need your magic for this idiosyncratic understanding of gravity to work. See also: http://canute1.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/problems-with-pose/

P.S., I'm not sure, but I don't think the Coriolis effect works on such a small scale, no matter the object. Hence the derision for those who use it to explain swirling toilet bowl water.

The coriolis effect caused by the Earth would not affect a runner in any perceivable way, but the concept applies to any rotating body. For example, it can be demonstrated with a marble on a turntable. I'm guessing Romanov is applying the coriolis effect to moving body parts, not the rotating Earth.

 

[Bare Lee]

What Lee said. While it seems to you that gravity is providing free energy, you're actually expending energy to counteract the effects of gravity.

I'll offer the same challenge I posted on my blog:

First, point me toward any published study that supports the premise that gravity can provide the energy needed to run. Even an abstract would suffice.

Second, if running is a controlled fall that is fueled by gravity, it should be able to be described as an equation. Please provide said equation.

Third- point me toward an actual physicist that can make an argument supporting the theory that gravity can provide the energy needed to run. I’m not looking for a coach that is claiming to use physics to explain the theory… I’m looking for trained physicists that actually understand the effects of gravity.

Thus far, nobody has provided any of the three.

Good list, you'd have thought that would've ended the discussion. You might include a fourth: If gravity can indeed provide free energy, what the heck are we doing messing around with messy fuels like petroleum & nuclear energy?
In the link I attached, Canute reports that Romanov himself admitted gravity can't be used as free energy. So why are Pose adherents still obsessed with this? Just use it as a metaphor or coaching cue and get on with it!

 

[Bare Lee]

The coriolis effect caused by the Earth would not affect a runner in any perceivable way, but the concept applies to any rotating body. For example, it can be demonstrated with a marble on a turntable. I'm guessing Romanov is applying the coriolis effect to moving body parts, not the rotating Earth.

OK, thanks for the clarification. My physics memory is 30 years old, but at least I remember the bit about gravity!

 

[Last Place Jason]

Good list, you'd have thought that would've ended the discussion. You might include a fourth: If gravity can indeed provide free energy, what the heck are we doing messing around with messy fuels like petroleum & nuclear energy?
In the link I attached, Canute reports that Romanov himself admitted gravity can't be used as free energy. So why are Pose adherents still obsessed with this? Just use it as a metaphor or coaching cue and get on with it!

I agree. At the absolute most basic level, it takes more energy to escape gravity than you can save (or generate) falling with gravity. That simple fact should provide all the evidence needed to refute the idea.

 

[randicoot]

What Lee said. While it seems to you that gravity is providing free energy, you're actually expending energy to counteract the effects of gravity.

I'll offer the same challenge I posted on my blog:

First, point me toward any published study that supports the premise that gravity can provide the energy needed to run. Even an abstract would suffice.

Second, if running is a controlled fall that is fueled by gravity, it should be able to be described as an equation. Please provide said equation.

Third- point me toward an actual physicist that can make an argument supporting the theory that gravity can provide the energy needed to run. I’m not looking for a coach that is claiming to use physics to explain the theory… I’m looking for trained physicists that actually understand the effects of gravity.

Thus far, nobody has provided any of the three.

I can't provide any either. Thanks for the link BL, if it was posted before I must have overlooked it. I didn't mean to imply that gravity is the only thing that fuels running. I did say that the "magic" is replaced by muscles and tendons. In the figure showing the different forces, it does show that gravity is a component of forward motion. Maybe the arrows aren't drawn to scale but it looks like a sizable force.

 

[Bare Lee]

I can't provide any either. Thanks for the link BL, if it was posted before I must have overlooked it. I didn't mean to imply that gravity is the only thing that fuels running. I did say that the "magic" is replaced by muscles and tendons. In the figure showing the different forces, it does show that gravity is a component of forward motion. Maybe the arrows aren't drawn to scale but it looks like a sizable force.

My pleasure. That's a good site for those of us who like to think about these things.

I think you need to generalize your understanding of gravity, or perhaps now we're just arguing semantics, but gravity is no more a 'component' of forward motion than it is of sitting, or swallowing, circulating blood, or jumping up and down in one place. Perhaps think of it as a 'medium' through which all this achieved, but without a notion of a completed cycle, you'll always be fooled into thinking gravity is somehow providing 'free energy.' Even when gravity does provide 'free energy' in hydroelectric energy or dams, it's only free because the sun hasn't charged us a fee for radiating the heat that evaporates the moisture up from large bodies of water into clouds where it can later be taken down by gravity in the form of rain and run-off into streams and rivers. If you start your model at some point where potential kinetic energy has already been stored, within a gravitational field, in some vertically higher position, as with a cloud or mountain stream or an upright rod, you'll continue to think gravity is the switch that starts a process in motion. But you have to ask how the higher position has been achieved in the first place, and how it can be restored. Framed this way, the answer will never be gravity.

Nice PR by the way .

 

[barefootandagile]

Jason,

Do you check and respond to your inbox here? If you don't that's cool. I will just stop sending you messages. Thx

 

[Last Place Jason]

Jason,

Do you check and respond to your inbox here? If you don't that's cool. I will just stop sending you messages. Thx

No, the only thing I reliably respond to is Facebook wall posts... as long as I catch them daily. I'm lazy that way.

 

[barefootandagile]

Jason,

If you want to see the info on pose and coriolis effect check your inbox

 

[Barefoot TJ]

Jason gets an alert (and an email) every time someone sends him a PM through this site, so yes, he is seeing them.

 

[Last Place Jason]

I think you need to generalize your understanding of gravity, or perhaps now we're just arguing semantics, but gravity is no more a 'component' of forward motion than it is of sitting, or swallowing, circulating blood, or jumping up and down in one place. Perhaps think of it as a 'medium' through which all this achieved, but without a notion of a completed cycle, you'll always be fooled into thinking gravity is somehow providing 'free energy.' Even when gravity does provide 'free energy' in hydroelectric energy or dams, it's only free because the sun hasn't charged us a fee for radiating the heat that evaporates the moisture up from large bodies of water into clouds where it can later be taken down by gravity in the form of rain and run-off into streams and rivers. If you start your model at some point where potential kinetic energy has already been stored, within a gravitational field, in some vertically higher position, as with a cloud or mountain stream or an upright rod, you'll continue to think gravity is the switch that starts a process in motion. But you have to ask how the higher position has been achieved in the first place, and how it can be restored. Framed this way, the answer will never be gravity.

Nice PR by the way .

This pretty much sums up why gravity can't power horizontal movement. Again.

 

[Last Place Jason]

I get a shit ton of messages here, on FB, email, RW, etc. Until I get a volunteer personal assistant, most don't get checked. Pareto's principle.

Jeremy- so the coriolis effect is in reference to the action of the leg moving around the hip (the axis of rotation). This is one of the areas I suspected were being described, but I'm not sure the coriolis effect would significantly decrease energy needed to move the foot through the swing phase, especially if the hamstring has to be contracted to pull the foot up.

 

[randicoot]

My pleasure. That's a good site for those of us who like to think about these things.

I think you need to generalize your understanding of gravity...

Nah, it's just a fun challenge to try to prove the impossible, I guess.

Nice PR by the way .

Thanks!