Posted by Cris LaBossiere (24.66.94.141) on February 04, 2004 at 22:57:53:
In Reply to: Re: RE Frank /Larsen posted by Frank Day on February 04, 2004 at 16:55:48:
It is known that the muscle recruitment pattern in deep water running is similar enough to land running that one could use deep water running for the majority of running training while still achieving the needed performance gains for land running, thus reducing known overuse problems from the impact of land running.
Many runners and coaches are still reluctant to do deep water running, mainly because it is so darn boring. However I believe many successful runners use deep-water running now, and I have found good results with my own runners.
Here is the interesting part. If the EMG of water running and PC training has strong similarities, then this may be positive and supportive data for PC use in running training, since water running has already shown benefits to land running. At minimum the data collected showing the efficacy of deep water running will show that it is possible to train a runner by simulating a running muscle recruitment pattern during an activity that is similar to, but that isn’t land running. So if someone says, “running on land is the only way to get better at running on land” in a potential argument against PC’s, a potent rebuttal would be to quote the results of deep water running. It’s been done once, maybe PC’s will reveal another viable option.
If it turns out that training on PC is almost as good, is as good, or is better than deep water running for improving land running, then coaches and athletes would have more options available (now including PC’s) for training runners without risk of overuse from impact from land running.
I am interested in how the work that Juerg and Frank are doing on PC’s pans out.