Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: physics-of-falling-says-professional-athletes-are-running-wrong

  1. #1
    Member DMA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    1,530

    physics-of-falling-says-professional-athletes-are-running-wrong

    https://www.newscientist.com/article...15-GLOBAL-hoot

    This is doing the rounds on social media

    Comments?
    Continuing to learn is one thing in life that has to continue.

  2. #2

    Re: physics-of-falling-says-professional-athletes-are-running-wrong

    What he describes sounds like stepping over the support knee. Most good sprinters already do this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Charlotte N.C.
    Posts
    2,249

    Re: physics-of-falling-says-professional-athletes-are-running-wrong

    It is always a slippery slope drawing conclusions via a review of an incomplete snapshot of someone's work.

    As for what is indicated clearly, his criticism of sprinters/coaches who are unaware of the physics of bipedal terrestrial locomotion, angular momentum included, presupposes 1. that he is on to something that most others are not, and 2. that the field is generally incompetent.

    A couple of the holes present in this glimpse of his position are the fact that his model seems to be based off a runner on a treadmill and moving at about 63% of tempo speed for a reasonably fit team sport athlete and only 32% of the max velocity of the sub 9.8sec 100m crew. So it's worth a chuckle that his test subject felt as if he was "flying" when moving at a jogging pace of 14km/h

    Again, I won't make the error of drawing a conclusion on his work based off that simple article, however, I will state with certainty that if any high level sprinter attempts to "learn the trick" of shifting their center of mass far forward they'll concurrently be learning the trick of negative vertical hip displacement which is death for a sprinter due to the increased braking forces incurred during GCT, GCT occurring farther in front of bottom dead center, and a lengthened ground contact patch.

    Lastly, its curious that he cites MJ as the model example of his theory because MJ's biomechanics were opposite of the author's suggestion to shift the center of mass forward.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,619

    Re: physics-of-falling-says-professional-athletes-are-running-wrong

    They need to do more treadmill sprinting.

  5. #5

    Re: physics-of-falling-says-professional-athletes-are-running-wrong

    sounds kind of like he's talking about limiting backside mechanics. to be honest, I'm having a bit of trouble visualising how this is any different from regular sprinting in any way that doesn't involve crumpling onto the ground.

    I'm kind of amazed that something so sketchy could get published in New Scientist… :P

  6. #6
    Moderator X-Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,721

    Re: physics-of-falling-says-professional-athletes-are-running-wrong

    hmmmm......highly debatable topic with many many different opinions
    X-Man
    CF.com Moderator

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    181

    Re: physics-of-falling-says-professional-athletes-are-running-wrong

    treadmills... unbelievable,

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    750

    Re: physics-of-falling-says-professional-athletes-are-running-wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by bmarcho1 View Post
    treadmills... unbelievable,
    Thanks again science...for nothing!

    Michael Johnson ran with a monstrous pelvic tilt which I don't think is at all desirable. He definitely was able to get his leg to recover quicker than most, but what the author is describing is simply front side mechanics. Thank you but we already know about this. I'd much rather have my athlete in a more neutral pelvic position so he / she could use more of their skeleton / tendons to overcome gravity rather than their spinal erectors.

    I'd be hesitant to model Michael Johnson's technique for anyone except Michael Johnson, and even then he did have some pretty regular injury trouble when he ran very fast, so ultimately I don't think it was a technique to look at as anything other than a one-off that worked really well for him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •