Question:
I think the chips are great. I ran a race on Thanksgiving and was checking the race results by the end of the day on the net. Barry Halligan
Response:
I think the chips are great. I ran a race on Thanksgiving and was checking the race results by the end of the day on the net.
That’s not really due to the chip; many races can post results same day that are not using the chip. — Tom Kelley
Response:
This is true, however, Tom’s suggestion takes on much more volunteer/staff labor, especially for 1000+ participant races. But to rent chips costs $$, and is less error-prone, so take your pick. happy trails, rich in austin, tx – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I think the chips are great. I ran a race on Thanksgiving and was checking the race results by the end of the day on the net. That’s not really due to the chip; many races can post results same day that are not using the chip. — Tom Kelley
Response:
At the Indy Mini a sponsor put their name on the velcro strap and the participant kept that piece of the ‘apparatus’. At the end we simply popped open the velcro and handed over the chip. It would seem to be a lot of trouble for both the runners and the race organizers if the velcro had to be returned…
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That’s funny, but the one I used was actually held on with Velcro so they could take it off easier at the end of the race. They take the chip and leave the velcro strap in in your shoe laces. Isn’t that they way they all work? Thanks, Roger The chips around LI are round grid like things. They used to have velcro straps but not any more. I think the race directors didn’t get enough of them back (I’ve got a few, they are great for holding my pants back while I bike to work. On another related note I wonder how soon before a shoe company stitches a velcro strap just for the chip. Remind me to patten that idea. Andy
Response:
On another related note I wonder how soon before a shoe company stitches a velcro strap just for the chip.
Too late. Quintana Roo (triathlon related products) has one out for triathletes. It’s padded for comfort. Mike Tennent "IronPenguin" Ironman Canada ‘98 16:17:03 Great Floridian ‘99, 17:13:38
Response:
The way I understand the chip system, the first person to cross the finish line would not necessarily be the winner, right? Someone behind him could have ran a faster race but crossed the line later. Has this ever happened to anyone’s knowledge?
It’s possible in a race with a "wave" start like triathlons commonly have, but even they start the Pro’s first so it’s unlikely. It’s more likely to happen in the age groups. USATF only recognizes the gun time, not chip adjusted times, for scoring a race. Mike Tennent "IronPenguin" Ironman Canada ‘98 16:17:03 Great Floridian ‘99, 17:13:38
Response:
Yes, you just HAVE to be smarter than the chip. Similar to improperly pinning on the race number, but I’d bet you want make the same mistake again. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Sounds like your own fault for 1) forgetting your chip 2) not tying it on securely I see this as operator error, not chip error. Hi, Permit me a rant. At yesterday’s Thanksgiving race I was standing on the starting line talking with a friend when the race director mentions something about the chip. This made me look down to see I didn’t have mine. I sprinted back to my car tied it on and sprinted back to the starting line. Not the kind of warm up I would have liked but that is the price of being forgetful. Well, I’m running along in the first mile and for an unknown reason I look down at my shoe to see that the chip had fallen off! I kept running thinking it would be better to do the race and find the chip later. I ran across the finish and through the chute and back out to the first mile to search. Needless to say I didn’t find it. Turns out I wasn’t scored. I would have taken 3 in my age group too! Not that I’m complaining about loosing an award, I’ve got enough of them gathering dust (forgive me if I sound calous). But race directors should be aware that chips do fall off or are forgotten and can be easily mixed up. Having a scoring chip system doesn’t eliminate all scoring problems. There should be a back up plan in the event of failure. I’m sure that chips are the wave of the future and will eventually be the norm. But in the meantime they aren’t fool proof yet. Peace, Andy
Response:
Andrew, sorry about your problem but I love the Chip. And it sounds as if you’er to blame, not the race or RD. Like running the wrong course or losing your bib. Sorry but not much sympathy here. I hope all races go to the Chip, it’s the best way of scoring. The way I understand the chip system, the first person to cross the finish line would not necessarily be the winner, right? Someone behind him could have ran a faster race but crossed the line later. Has this ever happened to anyone’s knowledge?
The chip, like your bib number, is essential to being a participant in the event. If you don’t wear your number, you can be disqualified from the event (USATF rule) and, though it’s not a rule, the chip is handled in the same manner, you have to wear it to be considered a participant in the event; it’s your own responsibility. I don’t know of any chip scorers who use a backup system, other than the second set of mats at the finish line. The fact is that the system works so well, it doesn’t really require a backup. As far as the first person to cross the finish line not necessarily being the winner, this is not possible under USATF rules, which indicate that the race officially starts at the sound of the gun. There is a widespread misconception about the chip that has people beliveing that they will always get a chip/net time and that time will be their official time. The fact is that most races, other than large marathons, don’t provide net times (I know this to be true of many chip scorers) and would rather provide a split time if the equipment is available. It seems to me that having a split would be more valuable than having a net time. — Tom Kelley
Response:
The way I understand the chip system, the first person to cross the finish line would not necessarily be the winner, right? Someone behind him could have ran a faster race but crossed the line later. Has this ever happened to anyone’s knowledge? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Andrew, sorry about your problem but I love the Chip. And it sounds as if you’er to blame, not the race or RD. Like running the wrong course or losing your bib. Sorry but not much sympathy here. I hope all races go to the Chip, it’s the best way of scoring. David "IndyRunr"
Response:
regarding the chip gone a-wandering midrace,
…or maybe swallow it before each race Now…that would certainly change the meaning of "post race recovery" wouldnt it?!
Response:
Chip times are not used in official timing. I would be unlikely for your scenario to happen. I don’t doubt it could but unlikely. Andy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The way I understand the chip system, the first person to cross the finish line would not necessarily be the winner, right? Someone behind him could have ran a faster race but crossed the line later. Has this ever happened to anyone’s knowledge? Andrew, sorry about your problem but I love the Chip. And it sounds as if you’er to blame, not the race or RD. Like running the wrong course or losing your bib. Sorry but not much sympathy here. I hope all races go to the Chip, it’s the best way of scoring. David "IndyRunr"
Response:
Jennifer – or maybe swallow it before each race
See "wrong diet?" thread. Palmer
Response:
Make it mandatory for the entire population and you’ll get my vote. –Dirk
Sure, and put a big 666 in front of it and tell people that they can’t buy or sell unless they have the chip. Jim Bartlett
Response:
Sounds like your own fault for 1) forgetting your chip 2) not tying it on securely I see this as operator error, not chip error.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, Permit me a rant. At yesterday’s Thanksgiving race I was standing on the starting line talking with a friend when the race director mentions something about the chip. This made me look down to see I didn’t have mine. I sprinted back to my car tied it on and sprinted back to the starting line. Not the kind of warm up I would have liked but that is the price of being forgetful. Well, I’m running along in the first mile and for an unknown reason I look down at my shoe to see that the chip had fallen off! I kept running thinking it would be better to do the race and find the chip later. I ran across the finish and through the chute and back out to the first mile to search. Needless to say I didn’t find it. Turns out I wasn’t scored. I would have taken 3 in my age group too! Not that I’m complaining about loosing an award, I’ve got enough of them gathering dust (forgive me if I sound calous). But race directors should be aware that chips do fall off or are forgotten and can be easily mixed up. Having a scoring chip system doesn’t eliminate all scoring problems. There should be a back up plan in the event of failure. I’m sure that chips are the wave of the future and will eventually be the norm. But in the meantime they aren’t fool proof yet. Peace, Andy
Response:
There should be a back up plan in the event of failure. Backup Plan for your next race: Make certain the chip is properly laced in under a double-knot. – Mike
That’s funny, but the one I used was actually held on with Velcro so they could take it off easier at the end of the race. They take the chip and leave the velcro strap in in your shoe laces. Isn’t that they way they all work? Thanks, Roger
Response:
That’s funny, but the one I used was actually held on with Velcro so they could take it off easier at the end of the race. They take the chip and leave the velcro strap in in your shoe laces. Isn’t that they way they all work? Thanks, Roger
The chips around LI are round grid like things. They used to have velcro straps but not any more. I think the race directors didn’t get enough of them back (I’ve got a few, they are great for holding my pants back while I bike to work. On another related note I wonder how soon before a shoe company stitches a velcro strap just for the chip. Remind me to patten that idea. Andy
Response:
Backup Plan for your next race: Make certain the chip is properly laced in under a double-knot. I suppose as a fool-proof method, but perhaps extreme, you could have it surgically implanted beneath the skin.
Make it mandatory for the entire population and you’ll get my vote. –Dirk
Response:
Andrew, Well, look on the bright side, bet you won’t forget your chip again. You don’t sound callous.You’ve earned your awards! Bet that sprint deserved an award.:) Laurie" we made mistakes, we learn" brillant huh? 
Response:
Backup Plan for your next race: Make certain the chip is properly laced in under a double-knot.
I suppose as a fool-proof method, but perhaps extreme, you could have it surgically implanted beneath the skin. Jennifer – or maybe swallow it before each race
Response:
Permit me a rant.
I almost forgot mine the first race also. However it worked out super and now I’m spoiled wishing more races could have the chip. But you do have a good point, and I hope they have a backup plan if something goes wrong. Roger
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, Permit me a rant. At yesterday’s Thanksgiving race I was standing on the starting line talking with a friend when the race director mentions something about the chip. This made me look down to see I didn’t have mine. I sprinted back to my car tied it on and sprinted back to the starting line. Not the kind of warm up I would have liked but that is the price of being forgetful. Well, I’m running along in the first mile and for an unknown reason I look down at my shoe to see that the chip had fallen off! I kept running thinking it would be better to do the race and find the chip later. I ran across the finish and through the chute and back out to the first mile to search. Needless to say I didn’t find it. Turns out I wasn’t scored. I would have taken 3 in my age group too! Not that I’m complaining about loosing an award, I’ve got enough of them gathering dust (forgive me if I sound calous). But race directors should be aware that chips do fall off or are forgotten and can be easily mixed up. Having a scoring chip system doesn’t eliminate all scoring problems. There should be a back up plan in the event of failure. I’m sure that chips are the wave of the future and will eventually be the norm. But in the meantime they aren’t fool proof yet.
Yeah, well you’ve proved that. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Peace, Andy
Response:
Andrew, sorry about your problem but I love the Chip. And it sounds as if you’er to blame, not the race or RD. Like running the wrong course or losing your bib. Sorry but not much sympathy here. I hope all races go to the Chip, it’s the best way of scoring. David "IndyRunr"
Response:
Hi, Permit me a rant. At yesterday’s Thanksgiving race I was standing on the starting line talking with a friend when the race director mentions something about the chip. This made me look down to see I didn’t have mine. I sprinted back to my car tied it on and sprinted back to the starting line. Not the kind of warm up I would have liked but that is the price of being forgetful. Well, I’m running along in the first mile and for an unknown reason I look down at my shoe to see that the chip had fallen off! I kept running thinking it would be better to do the race and find the chip later. I ran across the finish and through the chute and back out to the first mile to search. Needless to say I didn’t find it. Turns out I wasn’t scored. I would have taken 3 in my age group too! Not that I’m complaining about loosing an award, I’ve got enough of them gathering dust (forgive me if I sound calous). But race directors should be aware that chips do fall off or are forgotten and can be easily mixed up. Having a scoring chip system doesn’t eliminate all scoring problems. There should be a back up plan in the event of failure. I’m sure that chips are the wave of the future and will eventually be the norm. But in the meantime they aren’t fool proof yet. Peace, Andy
Response:
Question:
Actually Scott, you have NOT confused me. Very useful suggestion. As a fairly new runner, I am always on the lookout for these types of insights. Thanks Dianne and others following this thread- I have to chime in here because I have changed my running form this last year after working with Dr. Nikolas Romanov at the USAT Coaching school last summer and it has helped a lot (faster times, less injuries). He has a video out called the
POSE … … – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -short distances at first will help. Hopefully I havn’t confused you more. -Scott USAT Level I coach http://www.enduranet.com
Response:
Scott and others, This has truly been one of those golden threads which comes along every so often. As I said repeatedly, my intention is to remain green and growing rather than rip and rotting. So with that, my base of knowledge continues to grow with such great shared perspectives and also such intense questioning of the answers given. As said earlier: It’s not what you know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know that just ain’t so. Remember this started with a thread on breath. The first few paragraphs read: Next to proper running form and style and an integral part of proper running is breathing and the rhythms of breath. Once good running form is achieved one can keep the same cadence and be running 30 seconds to 2+ minutes a mile faster. The issue is getting the leg through its cycle to touch the ground maintaining the same cadence. This is where the concept of running is falling and catching oneself gracefully (come in). To that end, breathing becomes the next important factor in maintaining an oxygen uptake to support the increased speed while maintaining the same cadence turnover. Regarding breathing, as one gets faster, one needs to maintain the calmness of mind when one is efforting less. That is where the stuff on breathing comes in. The idea is that I can get more cycles of air in the same alloted time so that I can maintain my aerobic state longer and put off the anaerobic threshold or not cross it for extended periods of time. Scott’s point of faster running having a "smaller range of motion" is a point that is well taken. If you want to see the article which got a lot of people thinking about optimal range of motion in runners, check out the conference annals which Paul Milvy edited in 1976. The research article is by Peter Cavanagh, Michael Pollock (r.i.p.), Jean Landa pp. 328-345 "A Biomechanical Comparison of Elite and Good Distance Runners" in "The Marathon: Physiological, Medical, Epidemiological, and Psychological Studies," Annals of The New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 301, 1977. Stride length and different stride angles of the elite. Stride Stride Rate Swing Flight Support Length (steps/ Time Time Time (meters) min) (msec) (msec) (msec) Elite 1.56 191.0 431 120 205 n=14 Good 1.65 182.0 458 130 201 n=8 While none of the data was significant at the .05 level, as one might guess when comparing two group so close together, the little differences were interesting in terms of "Now what does that mean, if anything?" Also while none of the differences in knee flexion in swing and hip flexion in swing were significant it’s interesting that the knee flexion of elite runners was 3 degrees less than good runners, and hip flexion was 2 degrees less than good runners. In the summary and discussion: "The basic question still remains: Is efficient running a function of good style, a function of subcellular biochemistry, or some weighting of both, and what other factors are important? It is unfortunately not possible to give a definitive answer for this study. However, the lack of major significant differences in the biomechanical variables between the two groups leads one to believe that both the good and elite groups of athetes contain a similar range of running styles. The possiblity must therefore be propsoed that some of the elite runners have form or style that is worse than runners classified as good in the present study The technique of multiple regression analysis appears to be promising for the identification of which of the may variables studied in all aspects of this present multidisciplinary project are important for efficient running." pp 342-343 The Next Step Most people just swing their arms while running. But if you put a ski pole in their hands you’d begin to notice that the arm never swings behind the body. If you ask a runner standing in place to swing their elbows/ arms as if they were running, you will see them swing their elbows in front of their torso and then behind their torso. Like a swimmers hand in the water, like an oar of the sculler, like the pole of a cross country skier, the reality is that the swimmer’s hand, the sculler’s oar, the skier’s planted pole tip…they all stay relatively stationary. The swimmer’s body goes in front of the stationary hand, the sculler’s boat passes in front of the relatively stationary oar, the skier’s body goes in front of the stationary planted pole. So my perception is that the body is going in front of the the runner’s elbow as the body is being catapulted forward with each step. If you want an exercise to play with: Put your elbows shoulder high in front of you, with the arms pointing straight up. Run in this style with the idea that as your left knee raises, your right hand grabs an imaginary rung 3" or 4" above that hand…and immediately the next step, switch and grab the next run with the other hand. Keep this up for 50 or so steps and continue imagining the same thing happening that the hand grabs the rung, but slowly allow the elbows to lower until you are in your normal running arm position. So as Scott said about the faster one runs the smaller the range of motion. Apply that to the image to your arms/elbows. Although we became upright sometime ago, we are still a four footed animal. And the ski poles as extended arms get you back in touch with us as four footed. Something Else To Grab Onto Regarding the position of the hand, light fist, fingers pointed down, thumb resting on top of the pointer finger, (use of the tool which fits in the hand and allows on to rest the thumb straight ahead – guaranteed to give proper alignment of the arm), I have gone full circle and ended up with my hands open and straight but relaxed straight. If you do Tai Chi, it’s called Fair Maiden’s Hand. If you picture Carl Lewis’ hands you get the idea. So what do you think about the body as a system? That everything plays a part. And to get to natural is an interesting journey of practice and play from what a beginning runner, swimmer, biker perceives natural to be. And what so many people swear that just do what comes natural. So if you’re doing something wrong (read: unnaturally) and you think it right and natural, you won’t change or see the difference because there’s nothing to compare it to. So if Scott as a Level I USAT coach learned something last year, maybe there’s something to lifelong learning. As St George said: "We’re called to be poet, artists, philosophers, heroes, saints and athletes. So in that, be good animals."
I have to chime in here because I have changed my running form this last year after working with Dr. Nikolas Romanov at the USAT Coaching school last summer and it has helped a lot (faster times, less injuries). He has a video out called the POSE method of running which sounds very similar to what Ozzie is saying here. The video is available through Road Runner Sports catalog. I haven’t actually watched the video but didn’t think I needed it after working with the man. The main thing that I try to remember is to eliminate deceleration by not letting your toes go in front of your knees. If you extend your leg right before the plant, you will land on your heel and "stop" yourself. Just "drop" your foot underneath you as you fall forward (Dr. Romanov calls this "changing support") as Ozzie stated. Try to land mid foot though (on the ball of your foot, not your toes). What may be a little different though than what you noticed at the lunch time run is the recovery phase of the leg as it leaves the ground. Actually, you don’t want to overdo this part and that is a typical mistake. You should run as if running on hot coals. As soon as your foot hits and you have changed support and are falling forward still, get your foot off the ground by lifting it straight up under you (not kicking your own butt). Actually you should not have a big "heel kick" but a smaller range of motion. The range of motion for 8 or greater minute miles should actually be very small. The video probably explains it better. The thing about this form is that it takes strong lower leg muscles. Jumping rope and trying this new form for short distances at first will help. Hopefully I havn’t confused you more. -Scott USAT Level I coach http://www.enduranet.com — 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
Response:
Despite my extreme reluctance to dispute anything Andy says, Why be reluctant, Rick? I don’t think I’m *that* nasty when I debate w/ people! 
I wasn’t afraid of nastiness. I can deal with that easily. I was afraid of looking stupid. And that fear has not waned. In my own case, I trained myself many years ago to spin at a higher rate on the bicycle, and to maintain as closely as possible that cadence over all terrain, using the gears to adjust the effort. I can actually twist this around to support my argument…the reason why we all have to train ourselves to spin at a higher rate on the bicycle is because it is NOT efficient to do so (even though it may be optimal). IOW, we have to fight our natural tendency to pedal at slower, more efficient rpm’s…
Your distinction between optimal and efficient is an important one, and one that I had not considered. Ilike it. I will think about it during my next few workouts, and see what my body says. That translates very nicely to the notion of maintaining an even cadence while running, and adjusting the stride length to match the terrain. Not really, because on a bicycle you can’t really change the range of motion over which the muscles function – in essence, stride length is fixed at twice the crank length. This is, in fact, one thing that makes studying muscle/exercise physiology using cycling as a model somewhat unique, as during prolonged exercise you are forced to recruit the same motor units over and over and over and over and over…talk about an "unnatural" exercise!
This isn’t exactly true, unless you are trying to stay aero on a Hooker, heh, heh. Most riders change positions frequently on the bicycle to modify the muscle groups, even if only slightly. But I get your point. Even so, climbing a hill out of the saddle is a completely different exercise than time-trialing on the flats. But experienced cyclists will try as hard as possible to do both at a consistent cadence. I wonder why? Maybe they are wrong. But I still had to learn how to do it. My running economy has greatly improved (from deplorable to poor) by learning how to maintain a slightly higher cadence. No offense, but I have to ask – how do you know your running economy has greatly improved? Have you measured your VO2 at various running speeds? If not, you can’t say that your economy has changed – for all you know, you’ve made it worse, in which case you’ve proved my point…
I determine this in terms of performance. Even now, after a winter of laziness, I can go run five miles (like I did last night) at a pace that would have been near race pace two years ago. Am I better trained now than then? I don’t think so. My heart rate is lower at the same running pace, but my cycling performance has remained relatively unchanged. My body tells me that I’m not very fit right now, but I can run comfortably at a pace that would have been a strain two or three years ago. What has my body learned in that time? Economy seems the only consistent explanation. I’ve had similar gains in swimming that can solely be attributed to better technique and greater economy. But there’s another consideration, too. Many people run with a long, loping stride. That’s what they naturally run–that’s what their bodies tell them to do. But when they run with me, their bodies go up and down a lot compared to mine. I find that even though I’m as tall, I’m taking shorter, more frequent steps. I already pound the pavement–I’d be scared to death to hit the pavement as hard as they do. This may be an optimal vs efficient question. I’m quite sure, though, in reviewing my own experience, that taking shorter, more frequent strides was a breakthrough for me, especially on hills. But I recognize that I may have been relaxing from an unnatural running style into one that’s more natural–not the other way around. Horses are born to run, and do so continuously in their lives. Some of us had long periods in which we did no useful exercise. Could we not have forgotten what we need to know in that time? You give more credit to stiff, unfit bodies than I do. Rick "Unusually empirical in this discussion" Denney
Response:
Excellent posts, Scott and Oz. Thanks for sharing. — Tom NYC Marathon 2000 trainee <snippity do da
Response:
Dianne and others following this thread- I have to chime in here because I have changed my running form this last year after working with Dr. Nikolas Romanov at the USAT Coaching school last summer and it has helped a lot (faster times, less injuries). He has a video out called the POSE method of running which sounds very similar to what Ozzie is saying here. The video is available through Road Runner Sports catalog. I haven’t actually watched the video but didn’t think I needed it after working with the man. The main thing that I try to remember is to eliminate deceleration by not letting your toes go in front of your knees. If you extend your leg right before the plant, you will land on your heel and "stop" yourself. Just "drop" your foot underneath you as you fall forward (Dr. Romanov calls this "changing support") as Ozzie stated. Try to land mid foot though (on the ball of your foot, not your toes). What may be a little different though than what you noticed at the lunch time run is the recovery phase of the leg as it leaves the ground. Actually, you don’t want to overdo this part and that is a typical mistake. You should run as if running on hot coals. As soon as your foot hits and you have changed support and are falling forward still, get your foot off the ground by lifting it straight up under you (not kicking your own butt). Actually you should not have a big "heel kick" but a smaller range of motion. The range of motion for 8 or greater minute miles should actually be very small. The video probably explains it better. The thing about this form is that it takes strong lower leg muscles. Jumping rope and trying this new form for short distances at first will help. Hopefully I havn’t confused you more. -Scott USAT Level I coach http://www.enduranet.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ozzie Gontang wrote a bunch of interesting stuff about s/m, leaning (falling), and running faster, including: | | / | / | |/ | | | /| | / | | / | | / | | / | | / | |_ /_ |_ A B C If you don’t learn to pick up your knees and imagine yourself in toe clips on a bicycle, then you’re doomed to overstriding and stopping yourself with each and every step as you hit on the back of the heel of the shoe and decelerate at every step…jarring your knees and hips and beating the hell out of your ankles. But what the hay, you’re getting an aerobic workout until the injuries and muscle tension and problems make you stop. I had to repost the illustration, for those not following the discussion, it does not pertain to the paragraph. Oz, I’m busted! You’re right; I’m a shuffler. I took this discussion with me to a great runners’ clinic yesterday: lunch on the Mall between the Capital and the Washington Monument, where one can watch (or join) hundreds of government workers out for their daily run. I sat, watched, counted others’ s/m, and tried to discern form of the faster runners. What struck me was not their knee lift going into footfall but their kick behind to finish a stride. Your description of my current way of running is on target. Aches, jarring, unhappy joints. I’ll put in some miles this weekend with the recommended bicycle toe-clip stride. Eight-minute miles? Wouldn’ THAT be wonderful. Thanks Ozzie. Dianne
Response:
Ozzie Gontang wrote a bunch of interesting stuff about s/m, leaning (falling), and running faster, including: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – | | / | / | |/ | | | /| | / | | / | | / | | / | | / | |_ /_ |_ A B C If you don’t learn to pick up your knees and imagine yourself in toe clips on a bicycle, then you’re doomed to overstriding and stopping yourself with each and every step as you hit on the back of the heel of the shoe and decelerate at every step…jarring your knees and hips and beating the hell out of your ankles. But what the hay, you’re getting an aerobic workout until the injuries and muscle tension and problems make you stop.
I had to repost the illustration, for those not following the discussion, it does not pertain to the paragraph. Oz, I’m busted! You’re right; I’m a shuffler. I took this discussion with me to a great runners’ clinic yesterday: lunch on the Mall between the Capital and the Washington Monument, where one can watch (or join) hundreds of government workers out for their daily run. I sat, watched, counted others’ s/m, and tried to discern form of the faster runners. What struck me was not their knee lift going into footfall but their kick behind to finish a stride. Your description of my current way of running is on target. Aches, jarring, unhappy joints. I’ll put in some miles this weekend with the recommended bicycle toe-clip stride. Eight-minute miles? Wouldn’ THAT be wonderful. Thanks Ozzie. Dianne
Response:
I think you’re missing the thrust of the GAPO idea presented here.
I repeat – what’s GAPO? It’s not that to run fast you should not increase your cadence; it’s that it seems that the best cadence appears to be about 180 steps/min.
Only if you happen to have a certain leg length and run at a certain speed…to otherwise pick this stride rate (let’s use the right term – cadence is for cycling) will mean overriding the natural tendency to run at the most economical stride rate and length for that velocity. Many (in fact most of the ones I see) runners run at a cadence slower than 180, so what is suggested will result in a shorter stride for many.
And again I say, this is a mistake – only about 10% of all runners are habitual overstriders, and can benefit energetically and thus physiologically from shortening their stride. Run long, run short, run fast, run slow, but just run…there’s no need to try to override the respiratory control systems that have been evolving for eons and eons. I know how you feel here. I used to think this way too, and am a very skeptical person. However, I also try to keep an open mind and perform the experiment myself, if possible. When I shortened my stride and therefore increased my cadence to maintain the same pace, I found that I was much more efficient with the shorter stride.
And how did you determine that you became more efficient? As I said to Chuck Hull, unless you have ready access to a treadmill and a metabolic cart you have no waying of knowing if this is true – for all you know, your O2 cost of running is now higher than it was before. I’m willing to accept that you became more comfortable, felt "smoother", seemed to have less injuries, even that it seemed to help your racing performance – but please don’t tell me you became more efficient unless you actually measured your running economy/efficiency. A much more significant piece of data is the well-documented observation that elite runners have this 180 cadence.
Do those same runners have a stride rate of 180 when you ask them to jog a 10 min/mile? Of course not – both stride rate and stride length vary w/ running velocity. It makes no sense to try to copy what elite runners do **QUITE NATURALLY** when you are running at a significantly slower pace. If you really want to run as fast as an elite runner, then just run as fast as they do – provided that you’re of similar build, your stride rate and stride length will be similar to their’s. The only difference is that they can keep it up for much, much longer than those of us w/ much more limited athletic talent. Why is it people have this tendency to complicate and even romanticize such relatively simple motor control tasks such as running or cycling? The first comes quite naturally to human beings, whereas the latter, though an artificial form of locomotion, constrains you so much be seat height, crank length, etc., that you don’t have much option in determining how you pedal. Yet, people involved in these sports seem to want to believe that doing these tasks well is an accomplishment of motor control on par with microsurgery! Now swimming, OTOH, is an endurance sport where motor skill certainly does play a role, but here you have a) a motion that our ancestors have not practiced for eons (as opposed to upright bipedal locomotion) and b) that is not constrained by mechanical devices like pedals and cranks. Consequently, swimming efficiency or economy varies enormously from one person to another, something that is not true of running or cycling, where the range is relatively much less (and even that can be ascribed to biochemical, not biomechanical factors). Like I said, just run – that’s a very effective way of improving your running economy, as shown by lab studies that have followed people over time during a training program…
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you can grasp the wisdom contained here, you’ll realize that it’s GAPO at it’s best. What’s "GAPO"? (snip) Next to proper running form and style and an integral part of proper running is breathing and the rhythms of breath. Once good running form is achieved one can keep the same cadence and be running 30 seconds to 2+ minutes a mile faster. To keep the same "cadence" (i.e., stride rate) while running 30 seconds to 2+ minutes per mile faster would require significantly lengthening one’s stride. For most (~90%) runners, this would be *big* mistake – for about 80% of all runners, the freely-chosen stride length is the optimal stride length, while about 10% seem to "naturally" be overstriders (i.e., their freely-chosen stride length is greater than optimal).
I think you’re missing the thrust of the GAPO idea presented here. It’s not that to run fast you should not increase your cadence; it’s that it seems that the best cadence appears to be about 180 steps/min. Many (in fact most of the ones I see) runners run at a cadence slower than 180, so what is suggested will result in a shorter stride for many. Run long, run short, run fast, run slow, but just run…there’s no need to try to override the respiratory control systems that have been evolving for eons and eons.
I know how you feel here. I used to think this way too, and am a very skeptical person. However, I also try to keep an open mind and perform the experiment myself, if possible. When I shortened my stride and therefore increased my cadence to maintain the same pace, I found that I was much more efficient with the shorter stride. It was astouding to me and made me a believer. Now in my case that may be because I have very poor flexibility and in a longer stride I waste a lot of energy in that my quadriceps and hamstrings fight each other too much. Whatever the reason, in my experiment of one, the cadence of about 180 is the best one. So there is one tiny data point. (In fact I have been experimenting with this cadence variable a lot over the past couple of years and will report more later). A much more significant piece of data is the well-documented observation that elite runners have this 180 cadence. Give it a try! Cheers, Peter
Response:
Surely all of that tends to ignore the fact that you have a foot attached to the end of your leg?? Foot-strike, landing patterns, ankle-support etc will surely have a larger part to play in the runners choice of stride length than any pendulum stuff. Or am I missing the point here??? — MB. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – . To make a blanket recommendation that people lengthen their strides (which is what you have done by claiming that one should strive to maintain a constant cadence) is to encourage about 90% of all people to overstride, resulting in an increase in energy cost. This is not a recommendation. It’s an observed/observable fact. The leg is essentially a compound pendulum. Its first Natural Frequency (NF) also called the fundamental frequency is somewhere around 1.7 Hz. Not an official figure. I ballparked it using my right leg. If you give a pendulum a slight tap it is going to swing freely at its NF. The amplitude of the swing will depend on how hard the tap is. That is to say when the applied force is greater, the amplitute will be proportionally greater, and
conversly, low force input will produce less swing. HOWEVER, the frequency of the motion i.e. the number of cycles per unit time, WILL always be the same. When swinging at its natural frequency the pendulum requires no further force input beyond the initial impulse in order to maintain motion. On the other hand, if one wants the pendulum to swing at a different frequency one has to apply force continuously either to speed it up or slow it down. The force must be applied
continuously. If the force is removed, the pendulum reverts to swinging at its NF. The leg being much like a pendulum, it follows that a runner will expend the least amount of energy when his leg turnover is related to his leg’s natural frequency. Higher running speed is achieved by increasing the amplitude of the leg’s
swing i.e. the stride length. Just as in the case of a pendulum, the runner must apply
greater initial force – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -impulse, basically he’s got to lift his knee higher and produce more of a back kick. Back to 180 steps per minute. My very inaccurate measurement shows the NF to be near 100 cyles/minute (1.7 x 60). One step is a half of the swing cycle so in one minute there are 200 steps. Now, we are getting somewhere. 200 is pretty close to 180. The leg’s NF varies slightly as it is inversely proportional to the length of the leg. Thus we see the long legged runner running at a slightly lower turnover then the little guy. Pete, the math wiz
Response:
Despite my extreme reluctance to dispute anything Andy says,
Why be reluctant, Rick? I don’t think I’m *that* nasty when I debate w/ people! I must assert that my own experience shows that what we consider to be a natural stride may not be an economical running motion. Andy’s principle does not hold in cycling, where a typical racing cadence is considerably higher than the natural cadence used by casual riders, and where considerable energy is expended to teach that cadence. And few swimmers can depend on their natural motion; economical motions are natural only to the blessed few who were born with a true feel for the water. Everyone else must train to make unnatural-feeling motions feel natural.
Actually, my argument does pertain to cycling as well, as long as you recognize the distinction between what is most efficient (from a thermodynamic perspective) and what is optimal (from a performance perspective). That is, when allowed to freely choose a pedaling cadence, untrained individuals tend to pedal quite slowly (e.g., 50-60 rpm), which is in fact very close to the most efficient cadence. Trained cyclists, OTOH, tend to pedal more rapidly than what is most efficient, but this seems to be related to the need/desire to reduce local metabolic stress at the expense of a higher demand on the cardiorespiratory system (i.e., higher VO2 and HR). You’re right, though, cycling is an "unnatural" motor task, unlike upright bipedal locomotion (i.e., walking and running), which our ancestors have been practicing for eons. (BTW, most people stop walking and break into a jog at 3.5-4 mph, which is right at the point that it becomes more economical to run than to walk.) So it might make more sense to rely on a comparative biological approach, and look at what other species do to understand things better. Did you know, for example, that when allowed to do so on their own horses tend to switch between gaits (trot, cantor, gallop) at almost exactly the velocity at which it is most efficient (again, from a thermodynamic/energy cost perspective) for them to do so? I can dig up dozens of other examples, but I think you get my point – there’s a lot to be said for "body wisdom" in terms of the ability to self-optimize physiological function. In my own case, I trained myself many years ago to spin at a higher rate on the bicycle, and to maintain as closely as possible that cadence over all terrain, using the gears to adjust the effort.
I can actually twist this around to support my argument…the reason why we all have to train ourselves to spin at a higher rate on the bicycle is because it is NOT efficient to do so (even though it may be optimal). IOW, we have to fight our natural tendency to pedal at slower, more efficient rpm’s… That translates very nicely to the notion of maintaining an even cadence while running, and adjusting the stride length to match the terrain.
Not really, because on a bicycle you can’t really change the range of motion over which the muscles function – in essence, stride length is fixed at twice the crank length. This is, in fact, one thing that makes studying muscle/exercise physiology using cycling as a model somewhat unique, as during prolonged exercise you are forced to recruit the same motor units over and over and over and over and over…talk about an "unnatural" exercise! But I still had to learn how to do it. My running economy has greatly improved (from deplorable to poor) by learning how to maintain a slightly higher cadence.
No offense, but I have to ask – how do you know your running economy has greatly improved? Have you measured your VO2 at various running speeds? If not, you can’t say that your economy has changed – for all you know, you’ve made it worse, in which case you’ve proved my point… Andrew Coggan
Response:
And I thought running was just putting one foot in front of the other! So…let’s say I’m a slow runner, 12-minute miles, and running 180 s/m, greater strides is what it takes to get faster, right? Dianne (who counted s/m on a treadmill last night after reading this discussion, surprised to find I hit 176 s/m, although running on a treadmill is pretty unnatural.)
| | / | / | |/ | | | /| | / | | / | | / | | / | | / | |_ /_ |_ A B C You are standing at A with your feet together, you start to fall from the ankles keeping the body erect and straight. As soon as you feel yourself falling, place one of your feet directly under your center of gravity and you will notice that you stopped falling with no jar and you’re now balanced on the leg you put under your center of gravity (C). The B angle is too radical but you get the idea that if you lean, your center of gravity starts to move forward. If you didn’t put down your foot, you’d fall on your face. The more the angle of lean, the faster one falls. So to keep from falling you have to bring your next step forward faster so that you don’t fall. That angle of lean while only a few degrees means you have to bring the feet through faster. Now you know why you go faster. When you lift your knees and march in place, you are going 0 miles/hour. If you lean from the ankle even a degree or two then when you put one foot down underneath you gracefully so as not to fall, that foot is several inches in front of the other foot. That’s why I keep talking about learning to march in place. You can keep the same cadence and realize that it’s the lean from the ankle that increases your speed…because you falling faster a greater distance the more you lean. Remember the leaning is an erect body lean…NOT a hunching from the mid section or waist. Let me know if that picture helps any more. On a tredmill you get even a better sense of what I’m saying. If you stood erect on the tredmill and there was a permanent rail across the tredmill just touching your back. As the tredmill started, the railing would push your upper body forward… In reality the upper body would stay in the same place and the tredmill would pull your feet back behind the rail causing your erect body to fall forward, unless you put your foot down under your center of gravity fast enough to catch yourself. But the tredmill would pull that foot backwards and you’d have to catch yourself with the next step…and the tredmill would pull that leg back and the railing would stop your erect upper body and you’d have to put down the other foot. If I speeded up the tredmill my foot would be pulled back faster and further so I’d have to put by other foot down faster under my center of gravity so the railing wouldn’t stop my upper body making me fall on my face. Now you see that the faster the foot could be pulled backward by the tredmill the great the angle of that leg from the perpendicular…and the need to put down the other foot faster so that the railing against the back is pushing you over faster. Also you begin to see the need for flexibility because if the foot being pulled back by the tredmill couldn’t go far enough back, you couldn’t get the other foot down fast enough to catch yourself. Hmmmmmmm, glib and pompous. I’ve been around too long to be pompous, sometimes righteous, but that doesn’t last long knowing this group. Oppps, it was pedantic. I must confess to that foible. Diane I expect some 8’s, 9’s and 10 minute miles in the very near future. Also remember that when you put your foot down, just the foot goes down, the center of gravity doesn’t have to move up and down. Once you get use to just lifting up your knees, you’ll be amazed at what you can do speed wise and you won’t have practiced anything differently. You’ll have learned to run fast slowly. If you don’t learn to pick up your knees and imagine yourself in toe clips on a bicycle, then you’re doomed to overstriding and stopping yourself with each and every step as you hit on the back of the heel of the shoe and decelerate at every step…jarring your knees and hips and beating the hell out of your ankles. But what the hay, you’re getting an aerobic workout until the injuries and muscle tension and problems make you stop. Anyway, it’s all folklore. If it works you and makes sense, then use it. If it doesn’t, then don’t give it the time of day and find someone else who makes sense and whose folklore works for you. — 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
Response:
Andrew, I’ll tell you at least from personal experience, there seems to be something physiological which has occured since I adopted breathing control into my regular training. As I said earlier, the first times I tried to keep a 3in-3out breathing pattern in an easy run, I could not. In fact, I felt starved for oxygen after a few minutes, and had to take some "relief" breaths to feel I could continue. However, after about a month, I was running my 6mi easy run 3-3 the whole way. After a year, I graduated to 4-4, but always with concentration to keep it there. I believe that my fitness level before and after were probably equal. I’d guess that my VO2max was probably constant, as my best track times and 5K times were about the same as before, although I realize that times alone do not indicate VO2max. I did, however, have much more success with longer events despite not incorporating any increased mileage into my workouts. I don’t know if I’d developed a greater lung capacity, or it was just the fact that the more relaxed breathing took away one area of stress, but there certainly was a difference. This was especially apparent when I was really tired, as the usual collapse wasn’t happening. I’d hazard a layman’s guess that I slightly increased my lung capacity to take in air, thus allowing my breathing to slow. The reason I saw no benefit in my top-end performance is that probably my max ability to process the oxygen taken in had not changed. The ability to carry on further was most likely the result of the more relaxed state I was maintaining. I have also tried some of the breathing control on the bike, and even if it only gives you something to concentrate on when you’re trying to stay focused on the TT intensity, it seems to have provided me with an overall improvement over just letting my breathing stay random. I’ve felt absolutely done in a few times about 3/4 the way through a hard TT ride, and recovered my composure sometimes by including the breathing control into the complete assessment of my condition. I’ve also found that if I am sick, or just plain out of condition, there is no way I can maintain the really slow, 4in-4out breathing. This would imply that it indeed has some physical ramifications. Chuck – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The matching of breathing patterns to movement is called "entrainment", and occurs in many forms of locomotion. It is particularly common during running, since the upper body is involved in the movement and the stride frequency tends to help dictate the breathing frequency. On the other hand, it has been difficult to demonstrate such entrainment during cycling, at least on an ergometer, probably largely because there’s very little upper body movement involved and thus the respiratory muscles are free to operate almost competely independently of those responsible for locomotion. However, the ability of the respiratory system to oxygenate the blood and "blow off" CO2 does not systematically differ between running and cycling, and in fact for most people under most conditions is not limiting to exercise performance. Furthermore, I know of no evidence that entrainment (or the lack thereof) differs between elite athletes and non-elite athletes, or even non-athletes. Thus, while practicing various breathing patterns may provide some psychological benefit as a means of focussing, I see no reason to believe it would have a physiological benefit. Andy
Response:
In response to Ozzie Gontang (I think), Andy Coggan demurred: . To make a blanket recommendation that people lengthen their strides (which is what you have done by claiming that one should strive to maintain a constant cadence) is to encourage about 90% of all people to overstride, resulting in an increase in energy cost.
"Y-Rotation" disagreed: This is not a recommendation. It’s an observed/observable fact. The leg is essentially a compound pendulum. Its first Natural Frequency (NF) also called the fundamental frequency is somewhere around 1.7 Hz. Not an official figure. I ballparked it using my right leg. [snipped discussion of achieving running economy by maintaining a cadence that conforms to the natural swing frequency of the leg.]
Despite my extreme reluctance to dispute anything Andy says, I must assert that my own experience shows that what we consider to be a natural stride may not be an economical running motion. Andy’s principle does not hold in cycling, where a typical racing cadence is considerably higher than the natural cadence used by casual riders, and where considerable energy is expended to teach that cadence. And few swimmers can depend on their natural motion; economical motions are natural only to the blessed few who were born with a true feel for the water. Everyone else must train to make unnatural-feeling motions feel natural. In my own case, I trained myself many years ago to spin at a higher rate on the bicycle, and to maintain as closely as possible that cadence over all terrain, using the gears to adjust the effort. That translates very nicely to the notion of maintaining an even cadence while running, and adjusting the stride length to match the terrain. But I still had to learn how to do it. My running economy has greatly improved (from deplorable to poor) by learning how to maintain a slightly higher cadence. The muscles do not necessarily instictively understand that natural frequency. When I learned how to shorten my stride and maintain my cadence, I learned how to enjoy hills (I’m slow on them, but I enjoy them). For those of us for whom running does not come naturally, we must work on technique. Rick "A sloth must study to be more like a cheetah" Denney
Response:
I’ve run for 30 years now, and one of the latest improvements to my running has come from breathing control.
< snip The matching of breathing patterns to movement is called "entrainment", and occurs in many forms of locomotion. It is particularly common during running, since the upper body is involved in the movement and the stride frequency tends to help dictate the breathing frequency. On the other hand, it has been difficult to demonstrate such entrainment during cycling,
< snip Breath control figures so strongly in such disparate endeavors as yoga, Tai Chi, powerlifting, climbing, childbirth, and on and on, that it figures to be useful in endurance sports. Earlier in this thread, Ozzie borrowed the phrase "phase locking" from control systems geeks to describe it, and it’s a pretty good phrase. It’d be hard to find swimmers who don’t use it and a few runners I know will actually admit that they think about it, but biking is another matter. It’s hard to phase lock on a bike, because there seem to be so many candidate frequencies to synch to. Twenty or so years ago, I fitted my bike with sprockets that gave me 52:13 on the top just so the crank and wheel frequencies were in synch and I could synch my breathing to that. It’s not the recommended way to set up a mechanical drive, but it set up the biomechanics the way I wanted. You should have seen the blank stares of the people in the bike shop when I ordered the parts and described all of this. But then people think that I’m crazy. I suppose I am. I just don’t think that this is evidence of it. < snip some more of Andy’s post Furthermore, I know of no evidence that entrainment (or the lack thereof) differs between elite athletes and non-elite athletes, or even non-athletes.
Data point: I am a devout practitioner of entrainment, and I’m bog-slow at everything. Thus, while practicing various breathing patterns may provide some psychological benefit as a means of focussing,
This, of course, is the point. People are making careers out of coaching the psychology of endurance sports and teaching how to focus. Indeed, in some yogic exercises, breath control becomes THE center of BEING. I see no reason to believe it would have a physiological benefit.
But there’s a purely practical benefit. For me, the breathing patterns 6/6 4/4 (4/2 2/4 3/3) 2/2 correlate nearly perfectly with heart rate. True, entrainment and breathing control may have no (directly measurable?) physiological benefit, but its use as an immediate measure of how I’m feeling is important. Like dropping back to 4/4 for a few hundred meters before the hill, where I expect to be able to dust all those pathetic plodders who have somehow managed to get in front of me. Cheers, Fred – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Andy
Response:
And I thought running was just putting one foot in front of the other! So…let’s say I’m a slow runner, 12-minute miles, and running 180 s/m, greater strides is what it takes to get faster, right? Dianne (who counted s/m on a treadmill last night after reading this discussion, surprised to find I hit 176 s/m, although running on a treadmill is pretty unnatural.)
Response:
. To make a blanket recommendation that people lengthen their strides (which is what you have done by claiming that one should strive to maintain a constant cadence) is to encourage about 90% of all people to overstride, resulting in an increase in energy cost.
This is not a recommendation. It’s an observed/observable fact. The leg is essentially a compound pendulum. Its first Natural Frequency (NF) also called the fundamental frequency is somewhere around 1.7 Hz. Not an official figure. I ballparked it using my right leg. If you give a pendulum a slight tap it is going to swing freely at its NF. The amplitude of the swing will depend on how hard the tap is. That is to say when the applied force is greater, the amplitute will be proportionally greater, and conversly, low force input will produce less swing. HOWEVER, the frequency of the motion i.e. the number of cycles per unit time, WILL always be the same. When swinging at its natural frequency the pendulum requires no further force input beyond the initial impulse in order to maintain motion. On the other hand, if one wants the pendulum to swing at a different frequency one has to apply force continuously either to speed it up or slow it down. The force must be applied continuously. If the force is removed, the pendulum reverts to swinging at its NF. The leg being much like a pendulum, it follows that a runner will expend the least amount of energy when his leg turnover is related to his leg’s natural frequency. Higher running speed is achieved by increasing the amplitude of the leg’s swing i.e. the stride length. Just as in the case of a pendulum, the runner must apply greater initial force impulse, basically he’s got to lift his knee higher and produce more of a back kick. Back to 180 steps per minute. My very inaccurate measurement shows the NF to be near 100 cyles/minute (1.7 x 60). One step is a half of the swing cycle so in one minute there are 200 steps. Now, we are getting somewhere. 200 is pretty close to 180. The leg’s NF varies slightly as it is inversely proportional to the length of the leg. Thus we see the long legged runner running at a slightly lower turnover then the little guy. Pete, the math wiz
Response:
(many comments about running theory and attempts to analyze TV coverage snipped) This observation about the 180 steps/minute was also made by St. George when running around a track. He noticed that when the faster runners passed him he was doing the same stride cadence as they were but they were at a 5 minute/mile pace to his 8 minute/mile pace.
Comparing faster and slower runners is inappropriate – what matters is the relationship between pace, stride frequency, stride length, and economy (oxygen uptake, VO2) *within a given individual*. These have been studied extensively by biomechanists and physiologists, using tools (e.g., force platforms, high-speed cameras capable of hundreds of frames per second) w/ much greater precision than a TV videotape. As I said before, for the vast majority of individuals the freely chosen stride length is the most economical (least physiological strain) for that person, with only a very small percentage of individuals having a habit of under- or overstriding. To make a blanket recommendation that people lengthen their strides (which is what you have done by claiming that one should strive to maintain a constant cadence) is to encourage about 90% of all people to overstride, resulting in an increase in energy cost. If arguments from sports science won’t convince you, how about a teleological one: do you suppose a cheetah chasing after game at ~60 mph is worrying about its stride length, cadence, breathing pattern, etc.? Of course not…
Response:
I’ve run for 30 years now, and one of the latest improvements to my running has come from breathing control. I never gave it much thought until about 5 year ago when reading a particularly "heady" book about heart rate/lactate training. It casually mentioned the elite runner’s breathing being in a regular pattern of 4-5 steps in, 4-5 step out.
Chuck, The matching of breathing patterns to movement is called "entrainment", and occurs in many forms of locomotion. It is particularly common during running, since the upper body is involved in the movement and the stride frequency tends to help dictate the breathing frequency. On the other hand, it has been difficult to demonstrate such entrainment during cycling, at least on an ergometer, probably largely because there’s very little upper body movement involved and thus the respiratory muscles are free to operate almost competely independently of those responsible for locomotion. However, the ability of the respiratory system to oxygenate the blood and "blow off" CO2 does not systematically differ between running and cycling, and in fact for most people under most conditions is not limiting to exercise performance. Furthermore, I know of no evidence that entrainment (or the lack thereof) differs between elite athletes and non-elite athletes, or even non-athletes. Thus, while practicing various breathing patterns may provide some psychological benefit as a means of focussing, I see no reason to believe it would have a physiological benefit. Andy
Response:
To keep the same "cadence" (i.e., stride rate) while running 30 seconds to 2+ minutes per mile faster would require significantly lengthening one’s stride.
Depends. If going from 12 min / mi to 10 min / mi that’s a 20% increase. If going from 7min/mi to5 min/mi that’s a 40% increase. So – it depends. Assumes no cadence increase. Few of the latter runners would see as much speed improvement as the former. For most (~90%) runners, this would be *big* mistake – for about 80% of all runners, the freely-chosen stride length is the optimal stride length, while about 10% seem to "naturally" be overstriders (i.e., their freely-chosen stride length is greater than optimal).
Stride length varies with running speed. If left to their own, as most runners increase speed, the cadence increases at one-fifth the rate of stride length. Example: A 10 min per mile runner speeds up to 8 min/mi. That’s a 25% increase in speed. The runners cadence would generally increase by 5% (not really, but stay with me). Therefore, if the cadence had been 180 steps/min (s/m), then at 8 min/mi it would be 189 s/m. At 10min/mi: Stride Length (s/l) = 5280 ft/(10min*180 s/m) = 2.933 ft/step. At 8 min/mi: s/l = 5280 ft/(8min*189 s/m) = 3.49 ft/step. So, in fact the stride length only increased; s/l incr. = ((3.49/2.933)-1)*100 = 19%. The reason for only 19% is that the cadence increase, which does occur, causes a greater distance to be covered. So, in reality, if the time were taken to do a proper simultaneous solution of the equations, the result would be more like a 21% s/l and 4+% s/m increase. The point? Stride length and rate both affect *distance per unit time* considerations. As running speed changes, both tend to change. Better breathing, means more energy which in turn means greater force developed at toe-off. More force at toe-off means quicker strides AND greater distance during the airborne phase – ergo, increased stride length. The definitive study on s/l and stride rate was published in 1978 by Runners World. Bill Rogers was one of many subjects in the study. Very interesting stuff. Run long, run short, run fast, run slow, but just run…there’s no need to try to override the respiratory control systems that have been evolving for eons and eons. Andrew Coggan
Denny Anderson To ERR is human… to ZIN, divine!
Response:
I just want to say ssomething about the stride length increase. When the stride length increases it does not become an overstride. This is where Bob Pritchard of Somax used to sit on color/ commentary of NYC Marathon and I think at the Olympics and measure the stride angle of the runners and predict who would be doing well or later near the end of the race, whose stride angle had decreased and what that meant regarding their finishing time. With the Olympic tape that Denny has, the runners centers of gravity are over/or slightly in front of the landing foot. So the runners were landing ball/heel or for some what looked like a heel strike was really midfoot when you went frame by frame. For those whose foot swung in front of the knee, by the time it touched down, the runner’s center of gravity had moved over or in front of the midsole landing. The problem with most runners is that they do not pick up their knees so the lower leg pendulums forward and the runner lands on the back of the heel of the shoe which means that the foot is landing in front of the center of gravity of the body and therefore acting as a decelerator of forward horizontal movement. When one learns to run by picking up their knees, i.e. marching in place, and then leaning the erect body forward front the ankle like the broom balanced in the palm of the hand falling forward…and the person going as fast as the falling broom so that the person balancing the broom is running at the same speed as the falling broom, the broom’s angle of fall remains constant. Now in running at a minute or 2 minutes or 3 minutes faster a mile and maintaining a constant average of 180 steps a minute, the issue becomes one of flexibility and the ability of moving the legs through a longer horizontal distance while keeping the 180 cadence constant. This is where the heel closer to the butt creates a smaller lever arm which means knee/thigh can be brought through faster than if the leg is at 90 degrees or less. The flexibility allows for a longer stride, including the float time, so that the runner can put his foot down faster through a longer range of motion. When that flexibility can be maintained, then the antagonist muscle groups are stretching and relaxing while the agonist can contract and not have to do any extra work against a slightly contracted antagonist which creates a narrower Prichard stride angle. So I’m back to the statement that Running is one continuous fall where you catch yourself gracefully with each step. You keep the body moving in its horizontal direction with minimal vertical displacement. That minimal vertical displacement is like a runner sitting on a virtual unicycle. The runner/virtual unicyclist is falling forward and he/she is pedaling with the feet so that he/she maintains a constant pedaling speed so the runner/virtual unicyclist does not fall but continue to zip forward. That unicyclist image is what your elite runners do. That image starts with lifting the knees up and down in place and going zero miles an hour. That image when leaning from the ankle amd lifting the knees in place is what gets the jogger who is a 10 to 12 minute a mile runner to become a 7,8,or 9 minute miler with minimal effort. It’s what Denny is talking about and Miles and all the others that have thought beyond the heel/ball image when speaking about good running form and style. The heel/ball image of running is for most runners the proverbial overstride – meaning the foot lands in front of one’s center of gravity. For triathletes, if they can take the image of cycling and spinning, that is how the feet move when one is running in good form. The leg scribes the same circle as if one were pedaling, but the shoe is attached to the tire. This observation about the 180 steps/minute was also made by St. George when running around a track. He noticed that when the faster runners passed him he was doing the same stride cadence as they were but they were at a 5 minute/mile pace to his 8 minute/mile pace. Enough of my pedantry and wishing I could be more glib. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – To keep the same "cadence" (i.e., stride rate) while running 30 seconds to 2+ minutes per mile faster would require significantly lengthening one’s stride. Depends. If going from 12 min / mi to 10 min / mi that’s a 20% increase. If going from 7min/mi to5 min/mi that’s a 40% increase. So – it depends. Assumes no cadence increase. Few of the latter runners would see as much speed improvement as the former. For most (~90%) runners, this would be *big* mistake – for about 80% of all runners, the freely-chosen stride length is the optimal stride length, while about 10% seem to "naturally" be overstriders (i.e., their freely-chosen stride length is greater than optimal). Stride length varies with running speed. If left to their own, as most runners increase speed, the cadence increases at one-fifth the rate of stride length. Example: A 10 min per mile runner speeds up to 8 min/mi. That’s a 25% increase in speed. The runners cadence would generally increase by 5% (not really, but stay with me). Therefore, if the cadence had been 180 steps/min (s/m), then at 8 min/mi it would be 189 s/m. At 10min/mi: Stride Length (s/l) = 5280 ft/(10min*180 s/m) = 2.933 ft/step. At 8 min/mi: s/l = 5280 ft/(8min*189 s/m) = 3.49 ft/step. So, in fact the stride length only increased; s/l incr. = ((3.49/2.933)-1)*100 = 19%. The reason for only 19% is that the cadence increase, which does occur, causes a greater distance to be covered. So, in reality, if the time were taken to do a proper simultaneous solution of the equations, the result would be more like a 21% s/l and 4+% s/m increase. The point? Stride length and rate both affect *distance per unit time* considerations. As running speed changes, both tend to change. Better breathing, means more energy which in turn means greater force developed at toe-off. More force at toe-off means quicker strides AND greater distance during the airborne phase – ergo, increased stride length. The definitive study on s/l and stride rate was published in 1978 by Runners World. Bill Rogers was one of many subjects in the study. Very interesting stuff. Run long, run short, run fast, run slow, but just run…there’s no need to try to override the respiratory control systems that have been evolving for eons and eons. Andrew Coggan Denny Anderson To ERR is human… to ZIN, divine!
– 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
Response:
If you can grasp the wisdom contained here, you’ll realize that it’s GAPO at it’s best. What’s "GAPO"? (snip)
Oz says it’s either *Great All Powerful OZ* or* Gorilla Arm Pit Order*. Possibly *Glib and Pedantic OZ* :~} Sounds like something which would have been introduced by Miles L. Denny Anderson To ERR is human… to ZIN, divine!
Response:
Andrew, I agree with tour assessment of the stride length, but I have to take issue with your passing off breathing control as of no merit. I’ve run for 30 years now, and one of the latest improvements to my running has come from breathing control. I never gave it much thought until about 5 year ago when reading a particularly "heady" book about heart rate/lactate training. It casually mentioned the elite runner’s breathing being in a regular pattern of 4-5 steps in, 4-5 step out. I took note on my next easy run, and I had no regular method. I certainly could not go 4 steps in/out for more than a minute or so, and I was thus fascinated with this. I worked on 3/3, and it took about five runs until I could make my full 6mi easy run that way. After about a year of work, I could do all my easy runs at 3/3, and now have made it to 4/4 for the easy runs, 3/3 if a little more effort is needed. I must still, however, think about it. The 3/3 breathing has become much more automatic, but without though I go back to some sort of uneven breathing, not consistant, and certainly not as relaxing to the overall felling of control. The end result is much more control and relaxation. Even in a race, I now take note to keep the breathing regular,usually 2/2. My performances have stayed about the same, even as I’m aging, but I am MUCH more relaxed than I used to be. I’ve also kept the breathing control practice inmy track workouts, and there certainly is merit to it’s effectiveness. Chuck
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you can grasp the wisdom contained here, you’ll realize that it’s GAPO at it’s best. What’s "GAPO"? (snip) Next to proper running form and style and an integral part of proper running is breathing and the rhythms of breath. Once good running form is achieved one can keep the same cadence and be running 30 seconds to 2+ minutes a mile faster. To keep the same "cadence" (i.e., stride rate) while running 30 seconds to 2+ minutes per mile faster would require significantly lengthening one’s stride. For most (~90%) runners, this would be *big* mistake – for about 80% of all runners, the freely-chosen stride length is the optimal stride length, while about 10% seem to "naturally" be overstriders (i.e., their freely-chosen stride length is greater than optimal). Run long, run short, run fast, run slow, but just run…there’s no need to try to override the respiratory control systems that have been evolving for eons and eons. Andrew Coggan
Response:
while running in good form: If you can grasp the wisdom contained here, you’ll realize that it’s GAPO at it’s best. [ ... snip ... ]
Ozzie, Thanks you for your contributions in the last few days to rec.sport.triathlon. Your writings reflect an insight into the efforts of running that is not readily apparent. I have always enjoyed your posts in rec.running, but find keeping up with so many newsgroups to be difficult, and rarely read groups besides r.s.t. I am really happy that you’ve started crossposting here. Keep it up. Lance P.S. What is GAPO? — | Lance Ball | Anima Sana in Corpore Sano
Response:
If you can grasp the wisdom contained here, you’ll realize that it’s GAPO at it’s best.
What’s "GAPO"? (snip) Next to proper running form and style and an integral part of proper running is breathing and the rhythms of breath. Once good running form is achieved one can keep the same cadence and be running 30 seconds to 2+ minutes a mile faster.
To keep the same "cadence" (i.e., stride rate) while running 30 seconds to 2+ minutes per mile faster would require significantly lengthening one’s stride. For most (~90%) runners, this would be *big* mistake – for about 80% of all runners, the freely-chosen stride length is the optimal stride length, while about 10% seem to "naturally" be overstriders (i.e., their freely-chosen stride length is greater than optimal). Run long, run short, run fast, run slow, but just run…there’s no need to try to override the respiratory control systems that have been evolving for eons and eons. Andrew Coggan
Response:
If you can grasp the wisdom contained here, you’ll realize that it’s GAPO at it’s best. Path: electriciti.com!gontang Newsgroups: rec.running Organization: Int’l Assn of Marathoners I would appreciate any hints on the best way to breathe while jogging .
This post scrolled off a few days ago: Do long distance runners use any type of breating control? Like Long deep breaths? Or is it just best to breath naturally? Stan Just try to breath naturally. Try breathing through your nose only. When you are used to it you breathe as if sitting on your couch. Rob
Next to proper running form and style and an integral part of proper running is breathing and the rhythms of breath. Once good running form is achieved one can keep the same cadence and be running 30 seconds to 2+ minutes a mile faster. The issue is getting the leg through its cycle to touch the ground maintaining the same cadence. This is where the concept of running is falling and catching oneself gracefully. To that end, breathing becomes the next important factor in maintaining an oxygen uptake to support the increased speed while maintaining the same cadence turnover. This is where I teach breathing at slower speeds to a 4 steps in and 4 to 8 steps out. The idea is that I am never panicked and that my breathing sequences are always enough to sustain the rate of turnover…which maintains at the same cadence be it a 9 or 10 minute mile or a 5 minute or better mile. So running slow, I do a 4 in and 6 or 8.. Then as I need more air I go to a 4in/8out; 1 cycle of air every 12 steps 2 cycles every 24 steps 4in/7out; 1 cycle of air every 11 steps 4in/6out; 1 cycle of air every 10 steps 4in/5out; 1 cycle of air every 9 steps 4in/4out; 1 cycle of air every 8 steps 3 cycles every 24 steps 3in/4out; 1 cycle of air every 7 steps 3in/3out; 1 cycle of air every 6 steps 4 cycles every 24 steps 2in/3out; 1 cycle of air every 5 steps 2in/2out; 1 cycle of air every 4 steps 6 cycles every 24 steps 1in/2out; 1 cycle of air every 3 steps 8 cycles every 24 steps 1in/1out/1in/1out/2in/2out 9 cycles every 24 steps 1in/1out/1in/1out/1in/1out/1in/1out 12 cycles every 24 steps The ideal one goes for is the same volume at all rhythms. Remember you’re always breathing though the nose even when the mouth is open…unless your nose is blocked, i.e. nasal congestion. All of these patterns are breathed at a rate so that the mind stays calm and does not let any of the body unnecessarily tighten up from a perceived stress beyond one’s capability. The other aspect of breathing cycles is that an even (symmetric) breathing pattern, which means when the steps in & steps out total an even number, the runner is always running on the same foot at intake and also at exhale. With an odd (asymmetric) breathing pattern, which means when the steps in & steps out total an odd number, the runner is running off the opposite foot at initial intake step of each breathing cycle in three steps/out four steps in three steps/our four steps in-two-three out-two-three-four in-two-three out-two-three-four LFT-2 - 3—Rt -two-three-four RT-two-three Lft-two-three-four LFT-two-three… L 2 3 4 5 6 7 R 2 3 4 5 6 7 L 2 3… In animals there is a breathing pattern which is called phase locking. It has been photographed at high speeds in horses, cheetahs, ostriches where at full speed there is one pattern into which they fall. In humans, if I remember from the research, there were found two phase lock patterns at top speed. I have the research article somewhere in one of my files. I’ll see if I can dig it up. So you can see if you breath 2in/2out all the time and we speed up you can only continue to do what you do. You only get 6 cycles of air every 24 steps. Whereas I can pick up the speed and get 8 cycles or even 9 cycles of air every 24 steps…and if I practice I can get 10 or 12 cycles every 24 steps. You may begin to realize that running a marathon during the later part of the run from 15 onwards is a matter of running in a trance state. It is through these breathing patterns I have taught people to play with the rhythms of their breath to keep on going. So for someone whose muscles are glycogen depleted I need to maintain the same running pace but increase the amount of oxygen to those muscles…and that is where the breathing patterns come in. Some people begin to realize the power of rhythm. When I run with a partner and we are doing symmetric breathing of 2in/2out or 3in/3out or 4in/4out, I do reciprocal breathing so that after 3 or 4 minutes as they breathe out I am breathing in and as they breathe in I am breathing out. The sound can be heard and the experience is that the other person’s out breath is breathing me and on the next cycle mine his/hers. Eyes on the horizon, breathing reciprocally with my partner, the miles covered in trance are an experience to remember. When into the breathing and at different breathing patterns both symmetric and asymmetric and some being reciprocal, the breathing patterns of 3 or 4 or 5 of us mixed with the foot touch (rather than foot fall)can carry a group of runners easily for miles where the mind scans the body to relax any tension as it arises and lets it go…going back to the sound of the feet running together and the breathe of the pack. If you’ve seen Stomp you know the power of rhythm! — 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
Response:
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : I started playing soccer again. I found my mouth completely dry after about 15 minutes : of running. I talked to an acquaintance about it and the first think he said to do : was drink a pint (or was it a quart) of water about half an hour beforehand. So I need : to be well hydrated to begin with – I’ve begun drinking a lot more water all day, every- : day. (Any recommendations on how much water one should drink per day? I live in : Colorado, and it’s very dry here.) : Also, Pat said that he drinks this stuff that triathletes drink. I tried some. It : was orange flavor, sticky(?), and tasted slightly sweet. He said it keeps the tongue : sticky and will help keep one’s mouth from drying out. Also, he said that it has a lot : of different minerals(?) and metals especially chromium which he claimed prevents the : muscles from lactating (- is that possible? I thought muscles will always lactate…) or : that it prevents lactic acid from building up and keeps muscles from cramping up. : This stuff comes in a powder, runs about $20 for a can, and should last for a month : and a half or so. (I imagine how long it lasts depends on how much/how often you : drink it.) : Does anybody know the name of this ‘wonder’ drink? And where to get it? : Also, Pat said that Gatorade is ’shit’ – it’s all sugar. Now, I’m not defending : Gatorade, but their ads claim it has all this other important stuff in it. Is Gatorade : really of no value, is it just not as good as this other stuff, and/or is it just the : ‘in thing’ of serious athletes to say it’s not worth shit? : I’d appreciate e-mail replies. Thanks : — : — : Steve Camp There’s nothing better than water…save your money! Alex
Yep, lots of water b4 n after will do wonders. U can get all your minerals from a banana (lotsa potassium – your muscles need it!) or two, and maybe 3 slices of bread or a cup of cereal with skim milk 2-3 hours b4 bed. —
Response:
I got a little bit bored lately with plain gatorade and water – so I made my own anti-bonk solution. MIx : 2 parts lemon lime gatordade, 3 parts water, 1 part Hi-C Ecto-cooler, and 1 part mounatin dew. Chill and drink away!!! This stuff kicks A$&, and has saved me during 4-5 hour rides in the heat this summer. I’m not sure if the sugar or the caffeine is the more active ingredient, but they blend together harmoniously!! Good Luck!!
Response:
The debate on electrolyte drinks will go on for eternity. I guarantee it. But according to many tri-savvy medical doctors, the most important drink for almost every race is simply, water, water, water. Of course, in a race as long as Ironman the need for some type of electrolyte/glucose replacement becomes more of an issue.
You’re right, the debate is endless. There does seem to be some consensus on the points you make, though. For simply replacing lost fluids, water is the best; only in endurance events is something other than water necessary. I would only add that it doesn’t take an Ironman to deplete glycogen stores — from what I understand, sustained exercise of over an hour will begin to do it. On this same thread, a previous post mentioned that Exceed had gone out of business. Ross Laboratories did stop making it, but Joe Weider’s organization now sells it. Weider promised not to change it at all, and so far has not. I’ve tried lots of different drinks, and for me Exceed has proved to be the most effective. –Steve
Response:
There’s nothing better than water…save your money!
Agreed. Water is also versatile (splashing on head or shirt) and doesn’t stain!! Sometimes we do need a sugar kick, though. arthur — Choices don’t scare me. However, a lack of choices does.
Response:
Karen Smyers said in Triathlete that COKE saved her at Ironman, too.
Response:
(Reuben Joseph Myer) writes:
The debate on electrolyte drinks will go on for eternity. I guarantee it. But according to many tri-savvy medical doctors, the most important drink for almost every race is simply, water, water, water. Of course, in a race as long as Ironman the need for some type of electrolyte/glucose replacement becomes more of an issue. Since most IQ races and the Ironman serve Gatorade, it might be wise to at least adapt to this drink for the race or you’ll have to carry your own.
Response:
: (Reuben Joseph Myer) writes: : The debate on electrolyte drinks will go on for eternity. I guarantee it. I read somewhere that Scott Molina said something like "Its a good thing water bottles are not clear, or every one would see we drink generic coke from Safeway." If your race or training is less that two hours drinking carb may help you recover faster, but it is unlikely your performance will be improved. Longer than that stick with what will be served at your next race, or bring your own. I like watermelon flavored koolaid with a tablespoon of salt per gallon, but it is not for everyone. I also train in a hot, humid, hilly place for Ironman distance. — w 0-!Q0 a~ i { f<_.HNn NO CARRIER
Response:
I’m not a tri’er, but a rower. It seems the drink your friend brought *might* have been an Exceed product. The description sounds right…pretty serious stuff; it’s made (actually, it WAS made, they went out of business from what I understand) by Twin Labs. They had an energy drink and a pure carbohydrate drink you could buy in powder form or in the bottle. I liked the powder stuff…I used it only for ergometer (rowing machine) tests in the afternoon after a morning workout. Seemed like it replaced my carb stores from the earlier workout and gave me more energy for the test in the afternoon. I think its claim to fame was that it had something like over 20 carbs/serving with NO simple or processed sugars in it. In any case, from what I understand, for a short to medium timed workout (1 hr. to 2 1/2 hrs.) you can get all the replacement your body needs from water and eating your bannana in the morning. After a workout, drink GRAPE JUICE. I read a study in which it kicked the pants off of Gatorade AND water for replacing lost carbohydrate stores. I suppose other juices might work just as well (Cranberry, pineapple), but it might be a good idea to water it down to help replace more of the water that you’ve lost. Also, you might not want to drink lemon water because it tends to make the stomach contents fairly acidic–bad heartburn, you know. My .02$. RJ University of Va
Response:
| | | I started playing soccer again. I found my mouth completely dry after about 15 minutes | of running. I talked to an acquaintance about it and the first think he said to do | was drink a pint (or was it a quart) of water about half an hour beforehand. This was my approach, but I took it to the extreme: drink _as_ _much_ _as_ _you_ _can_ for the time period 6 hours before to 2 hours before. During the last 2 hours don’t drink anything at all; let your body reach equilibrium but with maximal water content. Then, you will be able to run for two hours in 40 degree heat (if you are fit and unless you are too old). Water was never a factor for me. Unfortunately, damage to the knees was. ps: make sure to eat well during that 6-to-2 period, so that you aren’t short electrolytes (but healthy, not junk food). One point is: you don’t need industrial poisons when natural methods will do. — Gruss, Dr Bruce Scott The deadliest bullshit is Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik odorless and transparent
Response:
Man) writes:
I disagree that Gatorade is bogus. It works quite well. Though certainly not for everyone, maybe. Try Endura, Hydra Fuel or new PR Fuel. Electrolyte drinks are important, especially for long hot events.
Response:
drink lemon water (you can either just throw in thin slices of lemon and chew ‘em as you drink or squeeze the whole lemon. it is a matter of taste). don’t sugar it, but use ice to cool it. try not to use sugar except, possibly, during competition, when you need the energy. during training, the regular sugar intake in well-balanced meals should be good enough… — "Free Advice and Opinions — Refunds Available" – Tiananmen Square: 5 years later, ignoring it becomes official US policy <– — ( I believe in emailing courtesy copies of follow-up articles ) <—
Response:
I started playing soccer again. I found my mouth completely dry after about 15 minutes of running. I talked to an acquaintance about it and the first think he said to do was drink a pint (or was it a quart) of water about half an hour beforehand. So I need to be well hydrated to begin with – I’ve begun drinking a lot more water all day, every- day. (Any recommendations on how much water one should drink per day? I live in Colorado, and it’s very dry here.) Also, Pat said that he drinks this stuff that triathletes drink. I tried some. It was orange flavor, sticky(?), and tasted slightly sweet. He said it keeps the tongue sticky and will help keep one’s mouth from drying out. Also, he said that it has a lot of different minerals(?) and metals especially chromium which he claimed prevents the muscles from lactating (- is that possible? I thought muscles will always lactate…) or that it prevents lactic acid from building up and keeps muscles from cramping up. This stuff comes in a powder, runs about $20 for a can, and should last for a month and a half or so. (I imagine how long it lasts depends on how much/how often you drink it.) Does anybody know the name of this ‘wonder’ drink? And where to get it? Also, Pat said that Gatorade is ’shit’ – it’s all sugar. Now, I’m not defending Gatorade, but their ads claim it has all this other important stuff in it. Is Gatorade really of no value, is it just not as good as this other stuff, and/or is it just the ‘in thing’ of serious athletes to say it’s not worth shit? I’d appreciate e-mail replies. Thanks — — Steve Camp
Response:
: I started playing soccer again. I found my mouth completely dry after about 15 minutes : of running. I talked to an acquaintance about it and the first think he said to do : was drink a pint (or was it a quart) of water about half an hour beforehand. So I need : to be well hydrated to begin with – I’ve begun drinking a lot more water all day, every- : day. (Any recommendations on how much water one should drink per day? I live in : Colorado, and it’s very dry here.) : Also, Pat said that he drinks this stuff that triathletes drink. I tried some. It : was orange flavor, sticky(?), and tasted slightly sweet. He said it keeps the tongue : sticky and will help keep one’s mouth from drying out. Also, he said that it has a lot : of different minerals(?) and metals especially chromium which he claimed prevents the : muscles from lactating (- is that possible? I thought muscles will always lactate…) or : that it prevents lactic acid from building up and keeps muscles from cramping up. : This stuff comes in a powder, runs about $20 for a can, and should last for a month : and a half or so. (I imagine how long it lasts depends on how much/how often you : drink it.) : Does anybody know the name of this ‘wonder’ drink? And where to get it? : Also, Pat said that Gatorade is ’shit’ – it’s all sugar. Now, I’m not defending : Gatorade, but their ads claim it has all this other important stuff in it. Is Gatorade : really of no value, is it just not as good as this other stuff, and/or is it just the : ‘in thing’ of serious athletes to say it’s not worth shit? : I’d appreciate e-mail replies. Thanks : — : — : Steve Camp There’s nothing better than water…save your money! Alex
Response:
