I have seen claims that this isn’t actually true, swinging our arms to counterbalance the legs is less efficient than just keeping them in place.
Where did I see this claim? Why, it was in this peer-reviewed scientific paper: https://youtu.be/-QW25fJ34nA , where by “peer-reviewed” I mean filmed with a live studio audience, and by “scientific paper” I mean segment of a TV panel show.
So uhhh yeah I’m not buying it but I can’t be bothered to check their sources.
While I do enjoy Qi (And TIL that Bill Baley is good at running backwards… I hadn’t seen that episode), I take some of their facts with a grain of salt, as it’s primarily an entertainment show. They do tend to oversimplify and miss some nuance from time to time.
Just as an example, one such case was in regards to flight theory, where the correct answer to “how do planes fly” was “nobody knows”. While there isn’t a grand unifying theory that describes flight theory in full, we do have a lot of individual concept that describe 99.9% of how flight works. It’s like saying “nobody knows” in regards to why the earth orbits the sun on the basis that we don’t have a unifying theory between quantum field theory and gravity.
I’m not disparaging Qi, though. It’s still a fantastic show, but it’s meant to be entertaining rather than complete.
EDIT: Yes, “Qi”, not “Windows”. Ducking autocorrect.
I totally agree. I believe they make some effort to get their facts right, but it’s not their highest priority by any stretch. I also suspect they might sometimes leave crucial details on the cutting room floor.
In this instance I get the impression that Sandi actually meant the arms are still swung but just kept straight, like a Minecraft run. But then Bill interpreted it as the arms kept straight and motionless, like that one Seinfeld episode, and Sandi didn’t correct him.
I have seen claims that this isn’t actually true, swinging our arms to counterbalance the legs is less efficient than just keeping them in place.
Where did I see this claim? Why, it was in this peer-reviewed scientific paper: https://youtu.be/-QW25fJ34nA , where by “peer-reviewed” I mean filmed with a live studio audience, and by “scientific paper” I mean segment of a TV panel show.
So uhhh yeah I’m not buying it but I can’t be bothered to check their sources.
While I do enjoy Qi (And TIL that Bill Baley is good at running backwards… I hadn’t seen that episode), I take some of their facts with a grain of salt, as it’s primarily an entertainment show. They do tend to oversimplify and miss some nuance from time to time.
Just as an example, one such case was in regards to flight theory, where the correct answer to “how do planes fly” was “nobody knows”. While there isn’t a grand unifying theory that describes flight theory in full, we do have a lot of individual concept that describe 99.9% of how flight works. It’s like saying “nobody knows” in regards to why the earth orbits the sun on the basis that we don’t have a unifying theory between quantum field theory and gravity.
I’m not disparaging Qi, though. It’s still a fantastic show, but it’s meant to be entertaining rather than complete.
EDIT: Yes, “Qi”, not “Windows”. Ducking autocorrect.
I assume Windows is inexplicably a typo of QI?
I totally agree. I believe they make some effort to get their facts right, but it’s not their highest priority by any stretch. I also suspect they might sometimes leave crucial details on the cutting room floor.
In this instance I get the impression that Sandi actually meant the arms are still swung but just kept straight, like a Minecraft run. But then Bill interpreted it as the arms kept straight and motionless, like that one Seinfeld episode, and Sandi didn’t correct him.
if this were true then you’d see runners in Olympics and elsewhere not swinging their arms. also a pubmed.
And you can often just tell when a claim is just too suspicious to believe.
Naruto run!