Great Running Technique



  • They're sprinters
  • Id assume the artist is depicting the musculature which develops concurrent with the performance of the running technique depicted. Hence well developed glutes.
  • Ricky Bennison wrote (see)
    Id assume the artist is depicting the musculature which develops concurrent with the performance of the running technique depicted. Hence well developed glutes.

    ...and the ridiculously tiny thin knees and feet no doubt.

  • Hmmm not sure if id agree with you there Rob. Most of runners portrayed seem to be more or less in proportion.
  • that was your last picture posted, In what way are those feet and knees in proportion?

  • In regards the size of any of the body parts theyre all more or less in proportion to the size of the figure as a whole. Some parts are accentuated.

  • YoungPupYoungPup ✭✭✭

    If I look at the vase above, all it tells me is that you need to push off from your toes - it doesn't suggest anything about how the foot ought to land on the downward step?

    Is there a way of running that means you don't push off from the front of your feet?


  • My impression of the above vase would be that a front foot and toes landing  is infered by the posture of the foot portrayed.

    Ive never heard of a running technique where the front foot and toes arent the last part of the foot to leave the ground.

  • Another good vase. Looks like the photographers included himself unintentionaly. Again form depicted concurrent with the front foot and toes running technique stated in the original post.

  • chuckling at your thread revivals.  

    Did no one point out this last vase  definitely infers heel striking? The Greek runners must have been getting tired and losing form by now.

  • Only works though if you have a 12 inch waist

  • On a point of semantics, and how it influences interpretation of technique, I would add that the second line of the OP is better understood as 'Landing on the front (aka fore) foot place your foot as far forward as you chose.' as opposed to 'Landing on the front foot place one foot as far forward as you chose.'

    The main difference is that the alteration from 'one foot' to 'your foot' has a tendency to lead to a greater committment to the step, making it more efficient. Interesting eh :)
  • To be fair chaps, you should cut this guy some slack, he does have a point. On New Year's Day I forced myself out for a clear the head run, I had 3.5 hours sleep and was still quite pissed from the night that ended only six hours previous. I was running on my hands and knees! I found running with hands and knees to be quite inefficient and only managed 5.25 miles. Yesterday however I went out running using just my feet and did 10 miles. I'm going to start running just using my feet one in front of the other from now on, I've found that works. I also saw Mo Farrah on telly running just using his feet and he did really quite well.
  • <blockquote class="Quote">
    </div><div><p>If i had a time machine, i'd love to see how good they were compared to today, on their natural diets, and hard lifestyle type training, though. My instinct says the best wouldn't be as good as todays best, but the average man would wipe the floor, even with todays better than average.</p></div>
    According to the article below, bone analysis points to the average person 5,000 years ago being likely stronger than fairly elite athletes. I reckon common professions like the military would have turned out people faster than today’s pro athletes. 

    That makes sense even if you look at photos pre 1950s & the car. Widespread workers like dock workers were all sinew & muscle. 

    <a rel="nofollow" href=""></a>;
Sign In or Register to comment.