Chi Running

I bought the book simply because I was exhibiting at a recent trade show, and the Chi Running guys were close by. I'd heard about it here, actually, and so I walked over to check it out. I've never been a big fan of running, so I bought the book and thought, "Well, if this helps I'm all for it."

I can't even get past the first few chapters. Horribly written (IMHO), goes nowhere fast and I completely lost interest. I'd love to believe it and I'd love to put it into practice, but I just don't have the time or desire to wade through all the crap in the book to get to the heart of it.

YMMV, I know it works for a lot of people and I don't mean to offend anyone.

I read the book and I found it useful. I think some of the stuff can be ignored as Dreyer makes some claims that are contrary to the body of research. I believe his views on nutrition and weight training are off base.

BUT: The book offers techniques for a beginning runner to do a lot of self improvement. The drills and focusing techniques are very helpful for developing good habits for long distance running. Especially for someone that may not have access to a coach that can give them feedback on their form. I also like the quick  pre-run loosining routine.

Since I'm being asked my opinion, it seems like the running version of Total Immersion where the author assures the reader that if you buy into his program you will effortlessly achieve all your goals through serene contemplation..ohm.

To echo some of the previous posters, yeah its written bad and the book is not for everybody.

Easy read but not a literary Top 100 

I found the techniques to be good for me in that I was a huge heel striker and this was causing me some pain issues and I worked on his premis of the lean and circular motion and stride length and it has helped me a lot.  As BigDH said it has made the running seem more effortless (I suspect this is from more efficiency).  It has helped me but it is not for everyone.

Steve

I find the technique useful and it has helped me avoid past knee pain and increased my times.  Not as much as I think it might if I actually trained more! ;-)

I have a martial arts BG but found the "Chi" stuff in the book to be a bit much.  More running, less chi and IMO it can help.

At its core, I don't have an issue with it.  The basic message is "Run lots, mostly easy, sometimes hard when you're ready."  Funny, this is the same message that Daniels, Pfitzinger, Glover, Lydiard, etc etc etc seem to echo.

I disagree with the form recommendations.  I disagree with the heel strike and cadence stuff; it's too specific to be universally applied.

I suspect that you are refering to my post and you are correct.  That is why I said that "for me" it helped me with two issues that I needed help with.  I was going to get the instruction from somewhere (and was looking at different sources) it's just that his delivery stuck with me as to how to address MY problems.  I don't agree with everything the author states but these things were/are a big help to me.

You suspect incorrectly.  I was not referring to anyone's post, I was stating my observations and experiences with the book.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post and/or not remembering the book clearly.  Are you saying Chi Running advocates a heel strike?  That's not what I recall or got out of it...just the opposite.  I think they advocate a more "neutral" foot strike.  The idea of running in sand and making a perfect footprint each time or running on ice, using a kind of circular stride is what resonated with me.

I disagree with the notion that the majority of people need to change their foot strike, and that heel strike is inherently bad.  Many top marathoners heel strike.  To say that one needs to change foot strike just because is, in my opinion, not always wise.  I agree that the foot needs to land close to the center of gravity, but I disagree that a forefoot or midfoot strike is inherently better than a heel strike.

Here's what puzzles me every time these foot strike discussions come up.  How does one land with one's foot under the center of gravity and, at the same time, heel strike (that is, land on the heel of the foot).  Seems to me that is mostly impossible.  Stand up and try it.  Heel strike will always be out in front of the center of gravity, correct?

I'm not advocating one foot strike or the other, just that the mechanics of heel strike means it's out in front of the center of gravity. 

Ok now I'm confused.  I inherently land on the middle of my foot.  I have been seeing a physical therapist for posterior tibialis tendonitis.  Just this morining I got told to concentrate on striking more with my heel as my running style puts more stress on the arch and the bottom of my foot.  I'm beginning to think running will never work out for me and it is gettin very depressing.

 I already suck at running. Now someone says I should heel as midfoot strike is bad for your feet. another group seems to say midfoot strike is better for you foot.  So how am I supposed to run without injuring myself.  How do I figure out which works best for me without hurting myself?

My point earlier was that we are all rather different, so when a book tells people that a particular foot strike is bad, I don't agree with the book.

As to how you figure out what works...  Unfortunately, it consists of experimentation.  In your case, it seems heel striking is preferred.  I don't see any harm in heel striking.

IMO, no.  More like "run on your entire foot" and position your body so by leaning gravity moves you forward.  FWIW, I am by no means an expert on "Chi Running" or running in general!  I just know the little bit I played with the technique seems to have helped with past injuries.

I was afraid you were going to say that.  Thanks I shall perservere.