Hi all,
During the years that I have been running I have heard many people state that you should try and increase your stride length and this will improve your speed and I have heard many say the opposite 'try and imagine you are running on egg shells and have a high leg turnover and try and spend as little time in contact with the floor almost as if you are gliding over it(above 160 strides a minute) ie. a shorter stride length'
What do you think - I tend to try and keep my legs 'spinning' with medium stride length - obviously when I'm running quickly I try and keep my legs turning over quickly AND have a long stride length, but what about when you are doing a longer run (anywhere between 5 miles and a marathon).
0 ·
Comments
Jon
If you ran the same distance in the same time with a fast cadence then compared it to using a long stride you would have burned more calories using the longer stride approach
It is the same in cycling – a fast cadence is more efficient that turning a big gear
Will
However......
I do think there are some important things worth mentioning.
1. Overuse injuries and lack of flexibility are affected by (amongst other things) stride pattern and therefore periodically it will benefit you to do specific drills to improve flexibility.
2. You will find it easier to run up hills (and running in general will be easier) if you attempt to maintain an even cadence i.e. if running uphill try shortening your stride.
3. A personal preference of mine is to focus on "quick feet" i.e. when in a difficult running situation, at the end of a race, into a wind or up a really steep hill I try and focus on keeping my feet moving quickly.
4. Finally, to improve stride 'power' overall try incorporating hill running and off road running into your regular schedule - this will give you increased strength and mobility.
For this to be effective the stilts would have to be clinically attached to your shin bones.
What do you think Martin?
If you take a longer stride the you are "flying" through the air longer (i.e., you are using energy to go upwards as well as forwards) before you come back to earth have to take another stride. If you take a shorter stride, you use the same amount of "moving forwards" energy (ish), but expend less energy pushing your whole body upwards into the air (so your body comes back to ground faster, so you have to take another stride sooner, so your stride is shorter...make sense?).
The thing on cadence for a bike ride is a little different, though fairly undisputed (although there's an upper limit of efficiency that's reckoned to be in the 90-100rpm bracket - much like there's a running cadence limit) - they reckon that the increased contraction of muscles (which helps push the blood through veins back to the heart) helps to clear out lactic acid at a slightly increased rate. Also, there's stuff they write about "neromuscular fatigue" which is much too medical for me. What I do know is that if I push a really high gear really hard on a steep upwards slope, my muscles will die and I just will not get to the top. If I push a small one, I am likely to get there eventually and my muscles will recover quickly and let me ride on...
Looking forward to seeing one and all on sunday
Jon
On a serious note the following articles may shed some light on the subject:
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0122.htm
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0142.htm
(Nice easy short words please!)
Nick
Either that or buys some stilts and have them surgically grafted to the bone etc.
I started reading your first post drew and thought it was a serious training point seeing as it was coming from you I thought surely Drew's not being flippant!!!! Good on ya.
I started running as a 400m runner at school with a very long (but, I guess, efficient) stride. When I moved to longer distances and running on the road I think I just ran in the same style but much further. For years I struggled with hamstring problems which proved to be a mystery to every physio I ever consulted.
One day someone videoed me in a race and I realised what I actually looked like, loping along and spending so much time airborne. I chopped my stride and increased the turnover, treated myself to a couple Bowen sessions (that's another message) and I have never had a problem since.
PS My favourite distance is 10k
I couldn't really lift my feet higher off the ground as the article suggested as it was too knackering but did manage to practice the high cadence and pushing with the buttock muscles etc. seemed to work.
We have a Q+A on this very topic.
It's only viewable to subscribers to the magazine, tho there's another about having a bouncy style which is totally *free*
Sean
Think of it this way: the only time you can accelerate is when you have a foot or feet in contact with the ground.
Ergo, the more often that happens, the faster you can go.
Speaking personally, I'm a bit of a novice runner whose build is rather more suited to power events (I throw the discus for my local athletics club) than it is for endurance. The main limiting factor with my own performance is lung power - basically, I get very out of breath long before my legs start to ache even at the slowest of running paces.
I used to do a lot of indoor rowing on a Concept2 ergometer. I noticed that there was a distinct difference between my own style of rowing to that of most other people. My own particular technique involved long, powerful pulls with a relatively low stroke rate (20-22 spm). Most other people seemed to be rather closer to 30 spm (and upwards) with a much shorter pull. Yet 9 times out of 10, my actual rowing pace was faster than theirs - usually substantially so. It struck me that my technique was rather more efficient (at least for my physique) and I'd noticeably flag if I tried to up the stroke rate.
I'm wondering as a 17 stone discus thrower if I could use this as an analogy to running style? Would I be better served by trying to take advantage of my leg strength by taking longer strides and saving my lungs by having a slower cadence.
Any views?
Hmmm...I know what you're trying to say, but it's slightly muddled! Tests have shown that what you do naturally is the most efficient for you. How far do you want to run? Leg strength is fine for short distances, but the problem with having big, powerful muscles during distance running is that those muscles need constant fuelling and their weight means they have to be 'carried' in a sense.
Running velocity = cadence x step length. If your step length makes up for your lower cadence, then that's fine. Having a higher cadence is not really related to cardiovascular fitness.
Here are some stats from the 1988 Olympic 100m final:
Ben Johnson - 9.79s - step length: 2.15m; cadence: 4.76 Hz
Carl Lewis - 9.92s - step length: 2.29m; cadence: 4.40 Hz
Running velocity = cadence x step length. If your step length makes up for your lower cadence, then that's fine. Having a higher cadence is not really related to cardiovascular fitness."
I'm looking to run rather longer distances than I used to... 5km and upwards. It just seems to me from my limited experiences so far that my legs aren't working as hard as they could in that they usually feel pretty fresh after a run while my lungs are bursting. So far as higher cadence not being related to cardivascular fitness, all I can say is that even a slight increase in cadence on my part results in a very much elevated heart rate and much gasping for breath!
My leg strength is good enough that I can paste the long distance running group in a standing long jump test despite being considerably heavier. However, that's most definitely a power event so I don't know how applicable/comparable it would be to a longer stride length while running.
shorter is better. Everything short is good!!!
Interesting reading as to whether I should be shortening or lengthening my typical running stride. Not that it seems there's a simple answer! Just whatever feels natural is the gist I'm getting?