General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Arm Swing Gyroscopic Effect?

Started by Topcounsel · · Last activity · 22 posts · 2,326 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
30 January 2004
Last activity
11 February 2004
Original author
Topcounsel
Posts
22
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,326
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 21–22 of 22
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Ozzie Gontang said:

    Thanks, and I'll stand on my own regarding my viewpoint and perspective. I believe that you can
    find many of the running coaches over the years in the US came from other countries. They wanted to
    share what they learned while making a living.

    That's true. There are so many fools in Yankee-land ready to believe *anything* an *expert* tells
    them, and to pay good money for the privilege of being duped. Where do we start? The 'pose' method?

    Quoted message said:

    The rigor over the 8 years here at rec.running has been to continue the dialogue and make my
    assumptions and viewpoints as visible and transparent as I am able. I am appreciative of those who
    have showed my faulty or incorrect thinking.

    Saying "I'm transparent" is a lovely way of hiding our opacity, isn't it?

    Hell, I could change my ISP, user name, writing style, and post on rec.running giving essentially
    the same advice as I do presently under the guise of a caring, concerned, informed running guide. In
    short, I would colour your perception of the worth of my words by polishing the frame in which my
    advice is contained. You may argue all you wish, but the manner in which we say something usually
    has far more effect upon the listener/reader than the content of our text.

    You have developed a running philosophy which you are singularly uninterested in amending. It isn't
    totally wrong - some of your advice on stretching and injury rehabilitation is excellent - but I
    find your 'inclusive, we're-all-winners' Yankee drivel simply too much to swallow.

    Running - despite the 'boom' years - never has been, isn't, and never will be, an all inclusive
    activity. By virtue of the severe physical and mental requirements of the sport it's only open to a
    select few within the population. To pretend that a four hour marathon, or a 50 minute 10k, is an
    accomplishment worthy of applause is to delude both yourself and your cohorts into a world where the
    simple act of living is viewed as having merit. 'S'not so.

    I will never possess the sailing skills of an Ellen MacArthur. Despite the fact that I toddle around
    in boats, I don't consider myself a 'sailor'. That's reserved for those who have faced danger and
    hardship at sea, and who have mastered navigational and technical skills that are, I suspect, beyond
    my abilities. The only thing we have in common is that we both get wet. Similarly, the only thing I
    have in common with most rec.runners is that we both get out of breath.

    I like the word 'jogging', because it accurately describes the activity levels and passion of
    those who run for fun. I'm a jogger now, and would find little to gripe about were that term
    applied to me. I don't, however, subscribe to the theory that jogging is an activity the needs a
    philosophy, a lifestyle or a ream of books written about it to encourage it's adherents. If you
    *have* to develop a philosophy, make it simple, fun, light and honest. Four words that you
    'running gurus' would do well to take to heart in your pseudo-scientific mumblings and quasi-
    religious rants. Broom handles indeed!

  2. "Ozzie Gontang" <[email hidden]> wrote in message =
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for
    details. ]]
    =20
    In article <[email hidden]>, Tim Downie
    <[email hidden]> wrote:
    =20

    Quoted message said:

    Ozzie Gontang wrote:
    =20

    Quoted message said:

    I do speak of the forward lean from the ankle which I see as necessary to keep a steady speed.
    The image for me is the broom handle in my palm falling forward and I keep moving with it so =


    that

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    the speed is constant.


    =20
    Arrrghhh!!
    =20
    Sorry Ozzie, whilst you might find it a helpful image, in the world =


    of real

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    physics, it's just plain wrong. As I've explained before, there is =


    *no*

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    constant speed at which you can maintain a constant angle of lean =


    with an

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    unbalanced broom handle.
    =20
    Tim


    =20
    Tim,
    =20
    What would the words, images, pictures you'd use to explain my incorrrect physics. =20
    =20
    All I know is that I can balance a broom handle or was just doing it with my digeridoo and as it
    starts to lean, I can keep walking with it as it falls so that it doesn't fall. I'm sure I'm
    missing something.
    =20
    Help me understand or get the phyics correct.

    Tim's right for balancing a pole with a pointy end. Constant velocity = (without air resistance)
    means the pole will fall. Ultimately Oz will reach the = speed of light, which will do wonders for
    his marathon time. :-). [But I = digress].

    Visualise a line from the pointy end to the CoG.=20

    Your hand is under the pointy end.=20

    Your task, if you choose to accept it is to stop the pole falling. Ie, = the=20 CoG doesn't
    go lower.=20

    The CoG is forward of the pointy end. Your push to achieve this has=20 a vertical component that
    stops the CoG going lower, but the horizontal=20 component of you push MUST accelerate the pole
    forward. Because=20 of the pointy end, you can ONLY push towards the CoG along the line you
    visualised.

    So far so simple.

    However runners and didgeridoos are not really pointy ended objects,=20 so the CoG CAN be ahead of
    the centre of the base, and yet not ahead of=20 the leading edge of the base (and it would fall back
    to vertical, or in = the=20 case of the runner, equally weight the front and rear foot, except for =
    the fact the feet are turning over).

    The runner brings their free leg through to become a leading edge and=20 the running doesn't fall
    flat on her face (unless she treads on her = shoelace).=20

    The front foot stops your falling (aka, lowering the CoG). At a steady pace (on an airless track)you
    go up and down.

    The weight bearing foot (IMH experience) is under the CoG at it's start position, but rapidly gets
    behind the CoG (accompanied by push off from the rear foot) and you MUST fall in that state. But
    don't fall far...

    My technical question (which I don't have an answer for) is whether there is lean from front foot to
    CoG from the moment that foot becomes weight bearing. I believe I have seen people running both
    ways, and what *I* feel is that my running is not leaning at the very start of weight bearing.=20

    Cate.

    PS: Idealised thinking from physics can screw you up when thinking about the real world. This is
    even more true for economics.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.