First ChiRunning Experience

"Asdf Boy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

After getting some advice on Pose Method & ChiRunning here in this
group, I thought I'd post my second experience.

<snipped, cause we want to keep David in a good mood>

I laughed myself silly when I first read your post. The words 'gullible',
'foolish', and 'nincompoop' flitted through what passes for my brain. Then
I thought, 'Hey, this seems to be working for this chap. Why jump down his
throat simply because he's following a regime you consider laughable?'
So, in the spirit in which your post was intended, yes, I would indeed be
interested in hearing of your progress - both the good and bad bits - as you
follow the ChiRunning programme. I'll look forward to reading your next
post on this subject.

Michael, good to hear about your positive first experience with ChiRunning.
Keep it up and keep us posted.

BOB

"Asdf Boy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

After getting some advice on Pose Method & ChiRunning here in this
group, I thought I'd post my second experience. In the first
experience I stupidly tried to do the pose technique just from a
magazine article (latest Runner's World). Although I only did it for
6 minutes, I ended up with a strained calf muscle that put me out for
a week. The soreness finally left and I decided to use a book to
avoid injuring myself further.

I ordered the ChiRunning book because out of the Pose & ChiRunning
books and videos, the ChiRunning book was the only one immediately
available in France (via Amazon.fr). I received the book Saturday and
was anxious to start but held off until my calf was better. I read
more than half the book and decided to give it a try today
(Wednesday). Danny discusses many components of form so I decided for
my first run that I would focus on:

- running cadence (85 per minute)
- keeping my body in a straight line, leaning only at the ankles
- make my feet hit under my body (slightly behind when leaning)
- move my arms more (to counterbalance the movement of my legs)
- staying relaxed
- pulling my feet up instead of pushing off

I wasn't worried about how my foot hit the ground and much to my
suprise, it naturally hit right where it's supposed to! (behind the
ball, almost flat). I attribute this entirely to the cadence. I took
a metronome that I use for my music, a small lightweight model. I
really love running with the metronome and will continue doing so
until I've got the 90bpm down pat.

I really need to do the exercises suggested in the book in order to
practice my form, but I think for a first day I did great. I only ran
about 16 minutes in order to try and minimize any soreness resulting
from altering my normal technique (or lack there of).

So far I really like the ChiRunning book and I'm positive I'm going to
run better as a result. The book is full of pictures which really
help to learn the technique. I'm sure the DVD would be good as well
but for now I'm happy with the book.

Bob Schroedter - Thank you so much for recommending ChiRunning in
response to my question about the Pose Method! And Ozzy - thanks for
posting about ChiRunning in this group, I found your posts with Google
and they were very helpful.

If people are interested I'll post some more results after a week or
two. Overall I really like the personal style in which ChiRunning is
written. When reading you feel like Danny is talking to you. The
quality of the book is excellent, especially the photographs. It's
also much less expensive than the Pose book. I really think ever
runner should read this book!

Regards,
Michael

PS: I went to a Tai Chi class last night. The prof told me to come 2
or 3 times (free) to see if I like it and if I want to join. I hope
it can help me with the relaxation. I didn't do it just because of
the book, I'd been interested in Tai Chi for a while now. But the
book motivated me a bit. 😉

Chi or Tao....
and how...
_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

"Asdf Boy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

After getting some advice on Pose Method & ChiRunning here in this
group, I thought I'd post my second experience. In the first
experience I stupidly tried to do the pose technique just from a
magazine article (latest Runner's World). Although I only did it for
6 minutes, I ended up with a strained calf muscle that put me out for
a week.

Been there, done that, got the T shirt. ;-) Certainly taught me not to
mess with my running form except in small incremental steps.

Quoted message said:

The soreness finally left and I decided to use a book to
avoid injuring myself further.

I ordered the ChiRunning book because out of the Pose & ChiRunning
books and videos, the ChiRunning book was the only one immediately
available in France (via Amazon.fr).

I don't know if it's just me but both Pose and Chirunning get off to an
incredibly bad start as far as I'm concerned by suggesting that you can use
gravity to drive you forward and in someway, get something for nothing. It
can't be done! Without losing potential energy (height) there is no way
that gravity will reduce the energy expended to run forwards by a single
erg.

Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the techniques described can't make
your running more efficient but if I've read it right, it suggests a
worryingly poor grasp of basic physics.

I've a sneaking suspicion that both these techniques simply boil down to
three simple rules, namely don't overstride, keep your cadence up and
minimise bounce.

Anyhow, do let us know how you get on.

Tim

Quoted message said:

Been there, done that, got the T shirt. ;-) Certainly taught me not to
mess with my running form except in small incremental steps.

I'm curious to know what happened. I was expectly a little bit of soreness
after my first chirunning session but not at all! I was pleasantly
suprised.

Quoted message said:

I don't know if it's just me but both Pose and Chirunning get off to an
incredibly bad start as far as I'm concerned by suggesting that you can

use

Quoted message said:

gravity to drive you forward and in someway, get something for nothing.

It

Quoted message said:

can't be done! Without losing potential energy (height) there is no way
that gravity will reduce the energy expended to run forwards by a single
erg.

Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the techniques described can't make
your running more efficient but if I've read it right, it suggests a
worryingly poor grasp of basic physics.

I think you're overlooking momentum. Your momentum going forward, and
gravity pulling you down, results in gravity assisting you. Think of a
satellite in orbit. Gravity is pulling it but it's going forward so fast
that it ends up in orbit. Now in running you won't be in orbit but I think
the effect, however small, is still there. It's been a while so maybe a
physicist can expand on this. Overall I think what Danny is saying is that
gravity is there so instead of fighting it, work with it.

Quoted message said:

I've a sneaking suspicion that both these techniques simply boil down to
three simple rules, namely don't overstride, keep your cadence up and
minimise bounce.

Good summary, I would add: good posture, lean from the ankles, and be
relaxed as possible. Don't rely on strength.

Quoted message said:

Anyhow, do let us know how you get on.

Will do.

-Michael

Tim Downie said:

I don't know if it's just me but both Pose and Chirunning get off to an
incredibly bad start as far as I'm concerned by suggesting that you can use
gravity to drive you forward and in someway, get something for nothing. It
can't be done! Without losing potential energy (height) there is no way
that gravity will reduce the energy expended to run forwards by a single
erg.

If you use your upper body muscles to lean forward slightly, you create
an unbalanced force that makes you want to fall forward. You have to put a
foot forward to keep yourself from falling on your face. Your legs
didn't propel you forward, your upper body muscles pulled yourself
forward. Note that you are NOT getting something for free (and i don't
think ChiRunning claims they do), however what you ARE doing is adding
additional upper body muscles into the task of propelling you forward.
You are not relying entirely on your legs/hips for that forward force.

"Newsbirdie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think you're overlooking momentum. Your momentum going forward, and
gravity pulling you down, results in gravity assisting you.

NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You could have the momentum of a black hole
orbiting another black hole and *still* gravity would be adding *nothing* to
your speed.

If gravity is pulling you down, you're either going downhill or falling flat
on you face. Those are the only conditions where gravity can assist you in
moving forward.

Tim

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think you're overlooking momentum. Your momentum going forward, and
gravity pulling you down, results in gravity assisting you.

NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You could have the momentum of a black hole
orbiting another black hole and *still* gravity would be adding *nothing* to
your speed.

If gravity is pulling you down, you're either going downhill or falling flat
on you face. Those are the only conditions where gravity can assist you in
moving forward.

This morning I did my second "chi" run. Where I live there are lots
of hills. Before reading the chirunning book, I remember running
downhill would hurt my knees. I think I was heel striking which was
creating a big impact and also breaking my momentum. Today, I tried
keeping my posture straight and due to the hill I naturally leaned
forward slightly. I found that gravity and my momentum pulled me down
the hill, and my feet hit just to keep me up. I went down the hill
pretty fast, without any effort and most importantly without any shock
to my knees!

While running flat I experimented with using my lean to change my
speed, while keeping my cadence constant (88). It was very
interesting. I could slow down or speed up just be leaning. This is
totally opposite of what I was doing before, where I increased my
cadence to gain speed. What I found was that I could run faster with
very little extra effort. I ended up running farther than usual in
less time. I was quite impressed.

This weekend I'm going to try a longer run.

-Michael

"NewsBirdie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

While running flat I experimented with using my lean to change my
speed, while keeping my cadence constant (88). It was very
interesting. I could slow down or speed up just be leaning. This is
totally opposite of what I was doing before, where I increased my
cadence to gain speed.

Are you sure? I think that most runners *think* that they run faster by
increasing their cadence but what they're actually doing is pushing off
harder and so increasing their stride length. I know I can vary my speed
greatly with no change in cadence until I get up to silly sprint speed.

Quoted message said:

What I found was that I could run faster with
very little extra effort. I ended up running farther than usual in
less time. I was quite impressed.

Clearly I'm going to have to try it but I'd still maintain that you're not
getting something for nothing and that any speed gains are through increases
in efficiency in your running form, not some weird effect of gravity.

How far were you running by the way? I find that when I go into what I call
my "minimal bounce mode" I use different muscles with their own fatigue
times. I often change styles when I'm tiring as I can give one set a
relative rest before switching back. Whilst I have a gut feeling that
minimal bounce must be more energy efficient, I don't yet find it more
efficient over any great distance.

Anyhow, keep it up. Makes a pleasant change from low carb diets etc. ;-)

Tim

Quoted message said:

This morning I did my second "chi" run. Where I live there are lots
of hills. Before reading the chirunning book, I remember running
downhill would hurt my knees. I think I was heel striking which was
creating a big impact and also breaking my momentum. Today, I tried
keeping my posture straight and due to the hill I naturally leaned
forward slightly. I found that gravity and my momentum pulled me down
the hill, and my feet hit just to keep me up. I went down the hill
pretty fast, without any effort and most importantly without any shock
to my knees!

While running flat I experimented with using my lean to change my
speed, while keeping my cadence constant (88). It was very
interesting. I could slow down or speed up just be leaning. This is
totally opposite of what I was doing before, where I increased my
cadence to gain speed. What I found was that I could run faster with
very little extra effort. I ended up running farther than usual in
less time. I was quite impressed.

This weekend I'm going to try a longer run.

-Michael

What a moron.

Barf Bag said:

Quoted message said:

This morning I did my second "chi" run. Where I live there are lots
of hills. Before reading the chirunning book, I remember running
downhill would hurt my knees. I think I was heel striking which was
creating a big impact and also breaking my momentum. Today, I tried
keeping my posture straight and due to the hill I naturally leaned
forward slightly. I found that gravity and my momentum pulled me down
the hill, and my feet hit just to keep me up. I went down the hill
pretty fast, without any effort and most importantly without any shock
to my knees!

While running flat I experimented with using my lean to change my
speed, while keeping my cadence constant (88). It was very
interesting. I could slow down or speed up just be leaning. This is
totally opposite of what I was doing before, where I increased my
cadence to gain speed. What I found was that I could run faster with
very little extra effort. I ended up running farther than usual in
less time. I was quite impressed.

This weekend I'm going to try a longer run.

Quoted message said:

What a moron.

I actually find the form gurus and their disciples amusing.

For all this pontificating about running "properly", the fact is that
a lot of these people who try to run "properly" (including the guy you're
responding to) get injured attempting to do so, which is ironic since
one of the supposed benefits of running "properly" is injury reduction.

I think some people just like making things complicated for the sake of
it. The truth of the matter is that it largely boils down to "one foot
in front of the other", preferably 100,000 times a week or so, and that's just
not a very compelling story to the average pontificating [censored], oops, I mean,
"chi runner".

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think some people just like making things complicated for the sake of
it. The truth of the matter is that it largely boils down to "one foot
in front of the other", preferably 100,000 times a week or so, and that's

just

Quoted message said:

not a very compelling story to the average pontificating [censored], oops, I

mean,

Quoted message said:

"chi runner".

YAY! Proof - and proof *was* needed - that Donny can write sense when it
suits him.

<< Donny can write sense when it
suits him. >>

suits me. suit him up.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

Quoted message said:

How far were you running by the way? I find that when I go into what I call
my "minimal bounce mode" I use different muscles with their own fatigue
times. I often change styles when I'm tiring as I can give one set a
relative rest before switching back. Whilst I have a gut feeling that
minimal bounce must be more energy efficient, I don't yet find it more
efficient over any great distance.

I just measured the distance I ran this morning with the car this
evening. First time I've measured my distance because I usually run
in the woods. Anyway, the distance is 5.2 km round trip in 30
minutes. I have no idea if that's fast or slow, but the run is very
hilly, almost no parts are flat.

-Michael

Tim Downie said:

relative rest before switching back. Whilst I have a gut feeling that
minimal bounce must be more energy efficient, I don't yet find it more
efficient over any great distance.

If "minimal bounce" is indeed more energy efficient, why only turn over at
180, when you could instead turn over at 190, or even 210 or so ?

The problem is that you're trading off different sources of inefficiency --
bounce versus the effort of accelerating limbs back and forth. There's a
cutoff point somewhere, which is why we're not all turning over at over 5000
strides per minute. The thing that you're calling "minimal bounce" isn't
really minimal bounce, it's more like "slightly less bounce than my usual
gait".

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"np426z" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think some people just like making things complicated for the sake of
it. The truth of the matter is that it largely boils down to "one foot
in front of the other", preferably 100,000 times a week or so, and

that's

Quoted message said:

just

Quoted message said:

not a very compelling story to the average pontificating [censored], oops, I

mean,

Quoted message said:

"chi runner".

YAY! Proof - and proof *was* needed - that Donny can write sense when it
suits him.

Nah, it was probably Bill spoofing him again. *Couldn't* have been Donny.

Tim

Tim Downie said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tim Downie said:

relative rest before switching back. Whilst I have a gut feeling that
minimal bounce must be more energy efficient, I don't yet find it more
efficient over any great distance.

If "minimal bounce" is indeed more energy efficient, why only turn over at
180, when you could instead turn over at 190, or even 210 or so ?

The problem is that you're trading off different sources of

inefficiency --

Quoted message said:

bounce versus the effort of accelerating limbs back and forth.

You're suggesting that bounce and cadence are linked and inversely
proportional.

Yep.

Quoted message said:

I can reduce bounce without increasing cadence.

Yes, by increasing ground contact time (or levitating)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's a
cutoff point somewhere, which is why we're not all turning over at over

5000

Quoted message said:

strides per minute. The thing that you're calling "minimal bounce" isn't
really minimal bounce, it's more like "slightly less bounce than my usual
gait".

Ha! You haven't seen me run. ;-) Seriously Donny, how can you possibly
comment on my bounce from 5000 miles away? I can run with my head unmoving
in the vertical plane if I so choose. Can't you?

I knew you'd gotten into the zen thing, but I didn't know you'd mastered
levitation. Congratulations! I think you may have surpassed Oz!

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 2004-09-23, Tim Downie <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ha! You haven't seen me run. ;-) Seriously Donny, how can you possibly
comment on my bounce from 5000 miles away? I can run with my head

unmoving

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the vertical plane if I so choose. Can't you?

I knew you'd gotten into the zen thing, but I didn't know you'd mastered
levitation. Congratulations! I think you may have surpassed Oz!

Sorry Donovan, now I think you really are a [censored]. You're assuming that I'm
maintaining my altitude at the top of my "bounce" and never coming down. It
doesn't work like that. Have a look at Gordon Pirie's book.

Until then, keep your wild suppositions to yourself. You're only making
yourself look stupid.

Tim

Quoted message said:

, now I think you really are a [censored].

Finally seeing things my way, eh Tim? Hee hee hee...

Quoted message said:

Until then, keep your wild suppositions to yourself.

He likes Suppositories.

Quoted message said:

You're only making
yourself look stupid.

Oh but he's soooo good at it...