Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

Can any of you trembling, anonymous cultists explain to me the academic justification for a Harvard professor to use himself as a subject to collect data for both ways of running? One, a way of running which conforms to the way the professor runs, and meets with the predetermined result of the study's radical sponsor. The other, not the way the professor normally runs, and contra to his evangelical mantra.

I don't know the definition for academic fraud, but this doesn't seem acceptable at all to me. Is this an objective discovery process?

I know HHH, but read his last few posts. He is personally attacking everybody.

Evidently he can get away with it. Which again I dont find surprising.

I am not just going to sit down and take it.

I will not stop personally defending myself from Malmo, until I reach my goal of making him review his posting style.

Frankly, I dont give a flying F about footstrikes. Nor the fact that he used to find it necessary to converse with people he thought were loonies.

It gratuitous arrogance which can make me lose it.

Go ahead. Make my day.

wtf100+n wrote:

There you go again, talk to Zeus (RIP) but wont send an email to Lieberman lol

I've spoken to the Lieberman's of the world. I get it.

I've seen these guys at post-race events. While the elites are drinking beer and eating hamburgers and greasy french frys, willing to talk to anyone about anything, there's always a table of Liebermans nearby - stoic, munching on a granola bar, sipping on their diet cokes, and discussing their superior knowledge of barefoot running and that the elites would maximize their performance if they would only listen. Instead elites are slackers who get by only because of their natural gifts.

Professor Nutjob, I get it.

wtf100+n wrote:

I know HHH, but read his last few posts. He is personally attacking everybody.

Nutjob, I'm not personally attacking anyone. You cultists choose to remain anonymous. I'm not the one making outrageous claims. You cultists are.

wtf100+n wrote:I know HHH, but read his last few posts. He is personally attacking everybody.

Evidently he can get away with it. Which again I dont find surprising.

I am not just going to sit down and take it.

I will not stop personally defending myself from Malmo, until I reach my goal of making him review his posting style.

Frankly, I dont give a flying F about footstrikes. Nor the fact that he used to find it necessary to converse with people he thought were loonies.

It gratuitous arrogance which can make me lose it.

Go ahead. Make my day.

Ah, I'll send you an e-hug, hopefully that will make you feel better.

Lieberman, Harvard, Nature magazine, posters with first and last name, the links you quote, the shoe companies, nobody is anonymous except for some people on this thread which is perfectly appropriate with the spirit of LR.

You are not anonymous out of choice and probably for your own benefit.

And by the way, I would not be surprised if you posted with other handles also.

Anonymity has nothing to do with it.

Your overflowing superiority complex does.

I will not stop until I reach my goal.

Lucky2B wrote:

"I'm surprised by the statement the shoe does not absorb some of the initial impact shock; that is counterintuitive to me. The shoe has an elasticity, which must lead to some compression that would decouple somewhat the road from the leg. Reference?"

my reply:

I didn't mean to imply that there is zero shock attenuation.

But it is less than one might expect.

There are a lot of papers on the topic.

A good place to start is at Google Scholar

search for:

Valiant Nigg transients

Gordon Valiant is at the Nike Sports Research Lab

Benno Nigg has a lab at Calgary and is often supported by Adidas.

not that there's anything wrong with that.;-)

The fact that they are stumped as to why cushioned shoes have modest effects on skeletal shock indicates that they are not shills for the shoe industry.

joe physics wrote:

Malmo is misunderstanding what distance change is relevant here.

It is not the distance moved forward, it is the leg length change.

Actually not. Running, competitive running and hobbyjogging alike, is all about the forward movement of the body. The only propulsive moment is when the foot is in contact with the ground. A force is applied, the body is moved, the time in which that body is moved relates to the power generated. That force is measured on the force plate. Now you can discount that measurable force with a discussion of internal energy losses, but until you demonstrate exactly how much energy is lost, you have nothing. My reasonable assumption is that it is proportional to the observed data on the force plate.

wtf100+n wrote:

Anonymity has nothing to do with it.

.

Whatever you say.

NO.Not whatever I say.If I, like others, say bullshit, you and/or others call it.But please stop being so arrogant.It is a waste of talent and resources.I am going to take a nap now. Thank-you.

malmo wrote:

wtf100+n wrote:

Anonymity has nothing to do with it.

.

Whatever you say.

joe physics wrote:

I didn't mean to imply that there is zero shock attenuation. But it is less than one might expect.

There are a lot of papers on the topic.

A good place to start is at Google Scholar

search for:

Valiant Nigg transients

Gordon Valiant is at the Nike Sports Research Lab

Benno Nigg has a lab at Calgary and is often supported by Adidas.

not that there's anything wrong with that.;-)

The fact that they are stumped as to why cushioned shoes have modest effects on skeletal shock indicates that they are not shills for the shoe industry.

Maybe you saw that I did answer my own question earlier, kinda got buried in all the to and fro, but thanks for the references.

wtf100+n wrote:

I will not stop until I reach my goal.

Why not stop your stalking long enough to answer this simple question?

Can any of you trembling, anonymous cultists explain to me the academic justification for a Harvard professor using himself as a subject to collect data for both ways of running? One, a way of running which conforms to the way the professor runs, and meets with the predetermined result of the study's radical sponsor. The other, not the way the professor normally runs, and contra to his evangelical mantra.

I don't know the definition for academic fraud, but this doesn't seem acceptable to me at all. Is this an objective discovery process?

You cultists are the ones with arrogant bullshit. Your entire thesis has been proven wrong, you've been taken out to the tool-shed for a proper upbraiding, now you want to throw rocks.

malmo wrote:

You cultists are the ones with arrogant bullshit. Your entire thesis has been proven wrong, you've been taken out to the tool-shed for a proper upbraiding, now you want to throw rocks.

Tell it like it is Malmo !!!

next they'll be discussing the effiency of nude skydiving !

Yea without the chute !

Why dont you write to him and ask him?Are you scared to confront him?

malmo wrote:

wtf100+n wrote:

I will not stop until I reach my goal.

Why not stop your stalking long enough to answer this simple question?

Can any of you trembling, anonymous cultists explain to me the academic justification for a Harvard professor using himself as a subject to collect data for both ways of running? One, a way of running which conforms to the way the professor runs, and meets with the predetermined result of the study's radical sponsor. The other, not the way the professor normally runs, and contra to his evangelical mantra.

I don't know the definition for academic fraud, but this doesn't seem acceptable to me at all. Is this an objective discovery process?

wtf100+n wrote:

Why dont you write to him and ask him?

Are you scared to confront him?

I did on his website, little boy.

No cults, no rocks.

Only in your tunnel-visioned mind.

Your arrogance will eventually overcome you.

I will not stop until this goal is reached.

The stalking is really creepy. End it.

wtf100+n wrote:NO.

Not whatever I say.

If I, like others, say bullshit, you and/or others call it.

But please stop being so arrogant.

It is a waste of talent and resources.

I am going to take a nap now. Thank-you.

Sounds like you need a nap!