I’m afraid I don’t follow you. Graphing state time against estimated max G loading would be interesting to plot, is this what you are trying to imply? Perhaps Pete could follow up with adding elements like Link đã ẩn. Bạn cần đăng nhập estimate G loading into his analsysis.My method for estimate max loading could also be put to the test for cases where time in air, time on stance and max loading is known, from this one could also tweak the PI/2 ratio so that it better reflects actual vertical GRF data rather than my sinusodal approximation. I’m confident that the (TimeAir/TimeStance+1) ratio will hold good.This simple equation also shines a light on notion Link đã ẩn. Bạn cần đăng nhập that landing close to underneath your center of mass as being nonesensical for lowering loads. If you landing close to your center of mass you reduce your time on stance and Link đã ẩn. Bạn cần đăng nhập force up the max loading to compensate or reduce the time in air even faster – something that requires are rapid increase in cadence to achieve. Efficiency is quite different from minizing loading though, shorter time on stance is often equated to greater running efficiency. However, the data in this blog and my own quick analsysis on G loading certainly don’t point to low time on stance being critical to getting best results. For long distance events like the marathon I suspect that advantages of keeping loading relatively low can compensate for lower efficiency of longer time on stance as it’s often muscle fatigue that gates performance Link đã ẩn. Bạn cần đăng nhập rather than maximum power output or available energy reserves.The graph shows on the axes swing time and stance time. However, there are other orderings hidden in the graph. For example, you’ll notice that the runners above and right in the graph have the highest step time, while the runners left and below have the lowest step time.More precisely, if you’d align a grid with the x axis parallel Link đã ẩn. Bạn cần đăng nhập to the line between Mosop and Kilel -the two runners with nearly the same step time- and the y axis perpendicular to it, you’d have the runners ordered from low step time to high step time along the y axis. In other wortds, if you tilt the whole graph roughly 30 degrees backwards, you get the rinners ordered accodring too their step time in the vertical axis. a common mistake made by people Link đã ẩn. Bạn cần đăng nhập is that they assume all distance runners will Link đã ẩn. Bạn cần đăng nhập land on their heel. This small observation as well as a number of papers proves this is not the case. The main difference between the fore/mid-foot striker and a heel striker is the joint moment around the ankle. As fore/mid-foot strikers land with their foot almost under their hip meaning the knee is more flexed which causes the joint moment to be pointing in the direction they are running. A heel striker lands with their foot further in front of their hip cause the joint moment to in the opposite direction they are running. This causes a small breaking force on impact. Heel strikers have to compensate this by hip extension during the stance phase. Fore/mi-foot strikers have completed this hip extension during the swing phase which places their foot under their hip. Mechanically fore/mid-foot strikers should be more efficient. Dont think it was coincidence two forefoot strikers Link đã ẩn. Bạn cần đăng nhập won the marathon.“As fore/mid-foot strikers land with their foot almost under their hip meaning the knee is more flexed which causes the joint moment to be pointing in the direction they are running. A heel striker lands with their foot further in front of their hip cause the joint moment to in the opposite direction they are running. This causes a small breaking force on impact.”I would disagree with this assertion. I see no evidence that heel strikers land automatically land further in front of center of mass than fore/mid-foot strikes. While it is an often repeated mantra for promoting Link đã ẩn. Bạn cần đăng nhập the fore/mid-foot strike I believe it’s myth.The forefoot is in front of the heel, so for the same flexion of the knee the forefoot striker will land further in front of their center of mass. The forefoot striker will also for the same geometries of limbs during the gait cycle will have a longer time on stance and less time in the air. This is no bad thing as it will result in lower peak loads as well lower loading rate.