Economy of Motion

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/fa...tml?ref=health

EXCERPTS

Economy can make the difference between being fast and being slow,
between winning and losing in swimming to skiing, cycling to speed
skating, running to rowing.

But economy is baffling. It seems to be physiological, but it is not
clear what exactly is involved. Is it an ability of muscles to use
energy, an ability to use a variety of muscles in concert, an ability
of nerves to activate certain muscles for a task while allowing other
muscles to relax, an ability of nerves to fire in near-perfect
patterns? Or is it all of these things in combination?

While many exercise physiologists believe, or hope, that economy
improves with training, they confess that it's not clear what kind of
training or how much it takes to make a difference.

They know that standard training programs, which emphasize speed and
distance, improve the other key factors in performance: VO2 max and
the anaerobic, or lactate, threshold, an indicator of how intensely a
person can exercise.

But economy is more of a mystery. In fact, there are only a few
documented cases of athletes whose economy improved. One was Paula
Radcliffe, the British marathoner. Every year for 11 years, starting
in 1992, she increased her running economy by about 1 to 3 percent. In
the end, she ran 40 seconds to a minute faster per mile, without
changing how much oxygen she took in.

....

But, Dr. Coyle said, "whether an average person running an hour a day
would experience the same benefit is the million-dollar question."

Researchers are finding that easy assumptions about exercise economy
just don't hold up under rigorous study.

Take the idea that you can tell who is an economical runner or cyclist
by watching the person perform. Not true, researchers say. The only
way to know is with tests in a lab.

Dr. Daniels showed this in a study in which he videotaped runners.
Then he sent the videos to coaches and biomechanics experts, and asked
which were the more economical runners.

"They couldn't tell, no way at all," he said.

But can runners become more economical if they change their form? The
surprising answer seems to be no, said Dr. Krahenbuhl. In fact, he
said, every study that asked what happened after runners changed their
natural form found that running economy declined.

It may take a long time for a change of form to result in better
economy, Dr. Daniels suggested.

....

Maybe economical runners or cyclists or swimmers are simply gifted in
general, researchers speculated. Perhaps whatever these athletes turn
to, they will be economical.

That, Dr. Daniels discovered, is not true.

He recently studied runners and measured their economy when they ran.
Then he measured it when they cycled, when they walked uphill at three
different inclines on a treadmill, when they stepped up and down on a
step, and when they cranked an ergometer with their arms. There was no
relationship between being economical at one activity and being
economical at another.

....

Dr. Coyle finds that the most economical cyclists have an abundance of
a particular type of muscle fiber, so-called slow twitch. It is not
known whether other types of muscle can convert to slow twitch with
training. But, he said, it may be that after years of training, nerves
are directed to allow more leg muscles to participate in pedaling. The
result might be greater riding economy.

"You might wind up changing the way your neuromuscular system is
wired," Dr. Coyle said. "It is a controversial area, but it makes
sense."

With swimmers, Dr. Coyle said, speed depends a great deal on
technique, which can improve to a certain extent with coaching and
training. Swimmers must overcome the drag of the water, and anything
that interrupts the fluid dynamics of their motion will cause them to
decelerate.

But physiological economy can also have a huge effect in swimming. Dr.
Daniels studied a woman who won an Olympic gold medal even though her
VO2 max was only average for a recreational athlete and was very low
for an elite athlete. Her gift? She wasted little energy, and that
skill more than compensated.

"Prisoner at War" wrote

Take the idea that you can tell who is an economical runner or cyclist
by watching the person perform. Not true, researchers say. The only
way to know is with tests in a lab.

I take issue with this. I am very uneconomical as a runner. When in my
prime, my vo2 max was 76.4 when not in my best shape, yet I could only
muster a 2:37 marathon. Your typical 2:14 marathoner has a vo2 max of 76.
I probably would have been a better cyclist, but I enjoy running much more
than riding.

I bounce a lot and take relatively longer steps. I can tell immediately by
running side-by-side with other runners how economical they are. A good
friend with only a 62 vo2 max could run a minute faster than me in a 10k,
and was comical running alongside of him: He was as smooth and level as an
electric motor or a V12 engine, and I was a roughly idling Harley by
comparison.

Twice I've come upon a super-efficient runner going easy (7-8 minute pace)
and asked if he was elite, and each runner had a 10k pr in the 29's.

I've also competed against a couple of national class guys -- in one case a
28:xx 10k runner passed me in a 50 mile relay (our team won, but he beat me
in our leg), and his feet were barely leaving the ground running 6:15 miles
uphill, zipping by in a super efficient quick-step shuffle. I felt like I
had square wheels in comparison.

I have some pictures of me running a 2:44 marathon about a year after I
started running, side by side with my super efficient friend, and the
difference in efficiency is obvious just by looking at the photos. I'll try
and dig them up and post a url.

Dr. Daniels showed this in a study in which he videotaped runners.
Then he sent the videos to coaches and biomechanics experts, and asked
which were the more economical runners.

If you're inefficient and run side-by-side with an efficient runner, it is
very obvious.

-- Dan

On Oct 11, 2:46 pm, Prisoner at War wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/fa...tml?ref=health

EXCERPTS

Economy can make the difference between being fast and being slow,
between winning and losing in swimming to skiing, cycling to speed
skating, running to rowing.

But economy is baffling. It seems to be physiological, but it is not
clear what exactly is involved. Is it an ability of muscles to use
energy, an ability to use a variety of muscles in concert, an ability
of nerves to activate certain muscles for a task while allowing other
muscles to relax, an ability of nerves to fire in near-perfect
patterns? Or is it all of these things in combination?

While many exercise physiologists believe, or hope, that economy
improves with training, they confess that it's not clear what kind of
training or how much it takes to make a difference.

They know that standard training programs, which emphasize speed and
distance, improve the other key factors in performance: VO2 max and
the anaerobic, or lactate, threshold, an indicator of how intensely a
person can exercise.

But economy is more of a mystery. In fact, there are only a few
documented cases of athletes whose economy improved. One was Paula
Radcliffe, the British marathoner. Every year for 11 years, starting
in 1992, she increased her running economy by about 1 to 3 percent. In
the end, she ran 40 seconds to a minute faster per mile, without
changing how much oxygen she took in.

...

But, Dr. Coyle said, "whether an average person running an hour a day
would experience the same benefit is the million-dollar question."

Researchers are finding that easy assumptions about exercise economy
just don't hold up under rigorous study.

Take the idea that you can tell who is an economical runner or cyclist
by watching the person perform. Not true, researchers say. The only
way to know is with tests in a lab.

Dr. Daniels showed this in a study in which he videotaped runners.
Then he sent the videos to coaches and biomechanics experts, and asked
which were the more economical runners.

"They couldn't tell, no way at all," he said.

But can runners become more economical if they change their form? The
surprising answer seems to be no, said Dr. Krahenbuhl. In fact, he
said, every study that asked what happened after runners changed their
natural form found that running economy declined.

It may take a long time for a change of form to result in better
economy, Dr. Daniels suggested.

...

Maybe economical runners or cyclists or swimmers are simply gifted in
general, researchers speculated. Perhaps whatever these athletes turn
to, they will be economical.

That, Dr. Daniels discovered, is not true.

He recently studied runners and measured their economy when they ran.
Then he measured it when they cycled, when they walked uphill at three
different inclines on a treadmill, when they stepped up and down on a
step, and when they cranked an ergometer with their arms. There was no
relationship between being economical at one activity and being
economical at another.

...

Dr. Coyle finds that the most economical cyclists have an abundance of
a particular type of muscle fiber, so-called slow twitch. It is not
known whether other types of muscle can convert to slow twitch with
training. But, he said, it may be that after years of training, nerves
are directed to allow more leg muscles to participate in pedaling. The
result might be greater riding economy.

"You might wind up changing the way your neuromuscular system is
wired," Dr. Coyle said. "It is a controversial area, but it makes
sense."

With swimmers, Dr. Coyle said, speed depends a great deal on
technique, which can improve to a certain extent with coaching and
training. Swimmers must overcome the drag of the water, and anything
that interrupts the fluid dynamics of their motion will cause them to
decelerate.

But physiological economy can also have a huge effect in swimming. Dr.
Daniels studied a woman who won an Olympic gold medal even though her
VO2 max was only average for a recreational athlete and was very low
for an elite athlete. Her gift? She wasted little energy, and that
skill more than compensated.

I used economy of my reading motion when I deleted your post.

"D Stumpus" wrote in message
...

"Prisoner at War" wrote

Take the idea that you can tell who is an economical runner or cyclist
by watching the person perform. Not true, researchers say. The only
way to know is with tests in a lab.

I take issue with this. I am very uneconomical as a runner. When in my
prime, my vo2 max was 76.4 when not in my best shape, yet I could only
muster a 2:37 marathon. Your typical 2:14 marathoner has a vo2 max of 76.
I probably would have been a better cyclist, but I enjoy running much more
than riding.

I bounce a lot and take relatively longer steps. I can tell immediately
by running side-by-side with other runners how economical they are. A
good friend with only a 62 vo2 max could run a minute faster than me in a
10k, and was comical running alongside of him: He was as smooth and level
as an electric motor or a V12 engine, and I was a roughly idling Harley by
comparison.

Twice I've come upon a super-efficient runner going easy (7-8 minute pace)
and asked if he was elite, and each runner had a 10k pr in the 29's.

I've also competed against a couple of national class guys -- in one case
a 28:xx 10k runner passed me in a 50 mile relay (our team won, but he beat
me in our leg), and his feet were barely leaving the ground running 6:15
miles uphill, zipping by in a super efficient quick-step shuffle. I felt
like I had square wheels in comparison.

I have some pictures of me running a 2:44 marathon about a year after I
started running, side by side with my super efficient friend, and the
difference in efficiency is obvious just by looking at the photos. I'll
try and dig them up and post a url.

Dr. Daniels showed this in a study in which he videotaped runners.
Then he sent the videos to coaches and biomechanics experts, and asked
which were the more economical runners.

If you're inefficient and run side-by-side with an efficient runner, it is
very obvious.

-- Dan


Thank you for posting this. It prompted me to do an internet search for how
to walk more efficiently. I am going to try some of them out on my next
walk. I will probably judge how it works by my heart rate monitor. If I can
do an hour at a heart rate of less than 80 BPM for 15 minute miles then I
have figured it out.

Bob

On Oct 11, 9:16 pm, "D Stumpus" wrote:


I take issue with this. I am very uneconomical as a runner. When in my
prime, my vo2 max was 76.4 when not in my best shape, yet I could only
muster a 2:37 marathon. Your typical 2:14 marathoner has a vo2 max of 76.
I probably would have been a better cyclist, but I enjoy running much more
than riding.

It's counter-intuitive, but that's what the article says the good
doctor turned up.

I bounce a lot and take relatively longer steps. I can tell immediately by
running side-by-side with other runners how economical they are. A good
friend with only a 62 vo2 max could run a minute faster than me in a 10k,
and was comical running alongside of him: He was as smooth and level as an
electric motor or a V12 engine, and I was a roughly idling Harley by
comparison.

Twice I've come upon a super-efficient runner going easy (7-8 minute pace)

In my own case, I'm not sure what to make of efficiency...when I used
to run around the Central Park reservoir, we joggers/runners would
often wind up in an ersatz, impromptu race of sorts, and there have
been times when I thought I was efficient, and was still slow, while
other times I only realized I was being efficient (smooth motion,
mentally focused, etc.) from beating the other guy...one time I was so
into it I almost didn't feel my legs, if you can believe that...I've
mentioned this episode a few times over the past few years of checking
in on these fitness newsgroups...it was incredible, and I daresay I
ran most efficiently that one time, basically my legs disappeared from
underneath me, all I felt was my arms swinging, as if wings flapping
furiously -- I didn't even feel out of breath, incredibly enough, even
though I beat the other guy (and we exchanged knowing winks
afterwards)...I was so efficient it wasn't even about my legs or lungs
anymore, but all I felt were my arms!

I've also competed against a couple of national class guys -- in one case a
28:xx 10k runner passed me in a 50 mile relay (our team won, but he beat me
in our leg), and his feet were barely leaving the ground running 6:15 miles
uphill, zipping by in a super efficient quick-step shuffle. I felt like I
had square wheels in comparison.

I have some pictures of me running a 2:44 marathon about a year after I
started running, side by side with my super efficient friend, and the
difference in efficiency is obvious just by looking at the photos. I'll try
and dig them up and post a url.

That would be interesting, yes.

If you're inefficient and run side-by-side with an efficient runner, it is
very obvious.

I wonder why all those coaches and biomechanics experts
failed...perhaps there are other cues other than purely visual ones
when one is actually running side-by-side...or perhaps that's too
subjective and one merely thinks the other is being efficient since
the other is beating oneself...?

-- Dan

Dnia Fri, 12 Oct 2007 o 13:03 GMT Doug Freese napisa³(a):

"D Stumpus" wrote in message

I take issue with this. I am very uneconomical as a runner. When in
my prime, my vo2 max was 76.4 when not in my best shape, yet I could
only muster a 2:37 marathon. Your typical 2:14 marathoner has a vo2
max of 76. I probably would have been a better cyclist, but I enjoy
running much more than riding.

I bounce a lot and take relatively longer steps. I can tell
immediately by running side-by-side with other runners how economical
they are.

I agree. We have some really good runners(Kenyan's, Moroccan's) in the
area that come for a local elite running camp. I would once in while get
to share the track with them. I would watch in awe as they did 60
second quarters with impeccable form. Some of them were three tall while
others were six foot and to a person they were poetry in motion. I think
good form is very visible.

I also think bad form is obvious. In many of my races when I see people
in front of me I can tell by their form whether I'll pass them.

Did any of you guys actually *read* at least the quotes? Experienced
trainers were proved to not be able to tell if you are economical or
not. You have to make scientific test. Awful looking form often
happens to be very economical and improved form often means loss of
economy.

C'mon. It's not so hard to actually read several quotes, is it?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

"Prisoner at War" wrote in message
ups.com...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/fa...tml?ref=health
....
Dr. Coyle finds that the most economical cyclists have an abundance of
a particular type of muscle fiber, so-called slow twitch. It is not
known whether other types of muscle can convert to slow twitch with
training. But, he said, it may be that after years of training, nerves
are directed to allow more leg muscles to participate in pedaling. The
result might be greater riding economy.

"You might wind up changing the way your neuromuscular system is
wired," Dr. Coyle said. "It is a controversial area, but it makes
sense."

I think that it's been established that certain fast twitch fibers can be
endurance trained, but they will never completely change to the
high-endurance slow twitch.

As far as running economy goes, simple changes can sometimes lead to an
improvement in economy. I remember running my first road races many years
ago, and switching to what felt like a slower shuffle stride actually made
it easier to keep up with the runners around me, though it didn't feel at
all natural to me at first. I would find myself running naturally, then I
would remember and switch to the shuffle stride and make things easier on
myself. Now it feels more natural, but I don't feel the same power in my
strides as when I was younger and more of a sprinter (well duh).

-Tony

On Oct 12, 2:57 pm, "Tony S." wrote:


I think that it's been established that certain fast twitch fibers can be
endurance trained, but they will never completely change to the
high-endurance slow twitch.

You know, IIRC, I think "Nutrient Timing" by the chairman of
Kinesiology at Texas U stated that muscles are extremely adaptable and
-- again, IIRC (this is at the end of the book; I'll have to look it
up at home tonight) -- slow-twitch/fast-twitch are
interchangeable...????

As far as running economy goes, simple changes can sometimes lead to an
improvement in economy. I remember running my first road races many years
ago, and switching to what felt like a slower shuffle stride actually made
it easier to keep up with the runners around me, though it didn't feel at
all natural to me at first. I would find myself running naturally, then I
would remember and switch to the shuffle stride and make things easier on
myself. Now it feels more natural, but I don't feel the same power in my
strides as when I was younger and more of a sprinter (well duh).

Interesting. I know that "kick" is important to speed, and it comes
naturally enough when I feel energized and am focused to "attack" a
stretch of distance, but otherwise trying to "remember" to kick seems
to result in my being slower, actually...same goes for furiously
swinging my arms like a locomotive -- it happens natural enough
sometimes, but other times when I try to consciously implement it for
a speed gain it seems to backfire -- though other times it still seems
to work...?!?!

-Tony

On Oct 12, 1:21 pm, Andrzej Rosa wrote:


Did any of you guys actually *read* at least the quotes? Experienced
trainers were proved to not be able to tell if you are economical or
not. You have to make scientific test. Awful looking form often
happens to be very economical and improved form often means loss of
economy.

I do know that when I'm trying to impress some girls at the track I
will revert to "classic form," which slows me down, actually...I'm
actually faster doing my unimpressive looking modest steps, modest
width strides, and steady little squirrel's cadence...it takes a lot
of energy to do that classic running form when I want to show off, and
it takes even more energy to actually make that form work well in
terms of speed-up or speed maintenance for all of a few yards!

Ditto for cycling, too, with its classic "hunched-back" form....

C'mon. It's not so hard to actually read several quotes, is it?

I think they simply disagreed with the conclusions nonetheless, based
on personal observations. (Of course, the article was talking
precisely about how personal observations seemed so lacking.)

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R