Strides - How do you do them?

Clearlier · 01-07-2014 11:24am #1

So, lbucko asked a question in a separate thread about how to do the strides in a P&D plan and I found myself suggesting something a bit different in a bit of detail - enough that I think it might merit a wider discussion.

Basically I think that during the aerobic development phase strides should be done as part of a main run with full recovery in between them.
A stride should:
- last about 8 seconds
- be a full controlled effort
- never go longer than 10 seconds
- be up a hill or on the flat

The next bit goes into a bit more details as to why I think the above which I haven't seen that widely advocated.

I'm begun to think a little differently about strides since reading Healthy Intelligent Training by Keith Livingstone.

He's basically attempting to interpret the training plans that Arthur Lydiard put together and make them accessible to the general public, he also goes a bit into the physiology behind them. It's relevant to P&D because IMO P&D is basically a pretty good interpretation of Lydiard.

This is simplified because you can get into masses of detail that isn't that relevant to this point. There are three main energy systems, the alactic, the aerobic and the anaerobic.

The alactic system is for very short bursts of power/speed and that system is exhausted after a maximum of 10 seconds.
The aerobic is the ones that distance runners want to focus on most of the time. If appropriately trained you can run for hours at aerobic efforts.

The anaerobic system is for sustained periods of speed. The old theory was that anaerobic was when lactic acid built up in the body faster than the body could clear it. Apparently it's now known that lactic acid isn't what forces you to stop or slow down but we don't know what does. As runners though we know the feeling when all the muscles start to tighten up, your head goes a bit woozy and you struggle to maintain co-ordination.

The point of strides in a Lydiard plan (at least during the aerobic conditioning phase or the first 11 weeks of P&D's 18 week plans) is to work the alactic system. You could do this by very short hill sprints or short strides. It's very important that you don't exceed 10 seconds or you'll starting hitting the anaerobic system which theoretically impacts your ability to develop your aerobic system (Livingstone talks about acidosis which is beyond my level of understanding although I'm instinctively slightly sceptical of the idea that you can't develop your aerobic system while developing your anaerobic system, that said I could easily accept that it would reduce the capability to develop it).

So, what does this mean? I think it means that in P&D they should change the strides prescription to short controlled sprints up a hill or on the flat for 8 - 10 seconds and no more. For the beginning runner I would aim for 7 - 8 seconds. For an experienced runner in an aerobic development phase 8 - 10 seconds at a full controlled effort.

What about developing stride efficiency?

I'm quite persuaded by the argument that a couple of minutes of working at running efficiently isn't going to have a huge impact on your running stride when you spend hours running in a different way. In other words you should be aiming to run efficiently all the time. If there's a new running skill that you need to develop then I see no harm in running very short distances thinking of a specific action but I'd also want you to be thinking of it during your other runs too.

This doesn't mean by the way that strides haven't a place in other situations such as during the warm up for a race. I'm just talking about them in the context of an aerobic development phase.

ecoli · 01-07-2014 11:54am

An interesting concept

With regards the short alactic (or Creatine Phosphate) hill sprints, these are definitely a very useful tool and are great with regards both developing the alactic system as well as the the impact on neural pathways for muscle fiber recruitment. Plyometrics and strength work would also come into play here and can have major benefits in terms of developing form.

I would say that 10 seconds is probably overextending this however and these strides should be maximal controlled effort for no more that 6-8 seconds irregardless of level.

In terms of P & D strides however IMO opinion I think you are right in what you are saying about practicing the whole time but I think that P & D strides aim to do this.

Personally I would feel it is impossible to change habits through continual conscious forced technique change. We end up expending more energy resisting the natural movement than we do actually learning the new form.

With strides however you aim to train the body to go from being unconsciously incompetent (for want of a better description) to consciously incompetent by introducing correct technique for shortened periods. The body then starts to get a feel for what correct technique feels like and as you progress your body unconsciously aims to reach this style of form simply because it results in less energy expenditure.

To simply put it, I think it is more effective to train the body to teach the brain than have the brain try to force the body given the sensory nature of the body in relation to its surroundings.

pconn062 · 01-07-2014 12:05pm

I have often wondered what is the point of a marathon runner doing strides, what relation does it have to the overall training? As Clearlier says it is not long enough to have an impact of form or efficiency compared to the hours of slow running that you are going to do. I see runners on here logging 10x100m strides done in 18-19 seconds (72/75 second 400m pace) and wonder what's the point. Obviously I think strides are important for middle distance runners but would be performed at much closer to full speed.

Clearlier · 01-07-2014 12:10pm

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that P&D try to get two birds with their strides stone and end up missing both.

There's a place for the alactic development and is what I think should be there in place of the strides they prescribe.

There's also a place for strides as part of a set of drills designed to improve your running form but there's a challenge that's not often faced which is how to translate the running drills into real changes in your running form. I don't know the best way of going about improving somebody's running form in paedagogical terms and I'm generally loath to suggest working too much on somebodys form to any great extent unless they are getting injured because of it.

Clearlier · 01-07-2014 12:17pm

pconn062 wrote: »

I have often wondered what is the point of a marathon runner doing strides, what relation does it have to the overall training? As Clearlier says it is not long enough to have an impact of form or efficiency compared to the hours of slow running that you are going to do. I see runners on here logging 10x100m strides done in 18-19 seconds (72/75 second 400m pace) and wonder what's the point. Obviously I think strides are important for middle distance runners but would be performed at much closer to full speed.

You're hitting the exact change in approach I've made to training recently. I'm suggesting that instead of the 6*100m often prescribed that shorter sections of up to 8 seconds (happy to go with ecoli on this timing) with full recovery but incorporated into the general run is the way to go.

ecoli · 01-07-2014 12:27pm

pconn062 wrote: »

I have often wondered what is the point of a marathon runner doing strides, what relation does it have to the overall training? As Clearlier says it is not long enough to have an impact of form or efficiency compared to the hours of slow running that you are going to do. I see runners on here logging 10x100m strides done in 18-19 seconds (72/75 second 400m pace) and wonder what's the point. Obviously I think strides are important for middle distance runners but would be performed at much closer to full speed.

I think there in lies the similarity. Both aim to work on being as relaxed as possible at race pace however with regards marathon runners I don't think there as away of energy expenditure simply because the effects aren't as short term. With a 1500m runner for example bad form in early stages are felt less then 4 minutes later so there is a direct correlation in the mind whereas marathon runners would find it harder to make the association or attribute it to something else ( fitness levels, race fueling etc) given the affects might not be felt for up to 2-3 hours later in the final few miles.

With regards maximal effort though I think that fibre recruitment (i.e near maximal speed strides) can have huge benefits for both atletes)

Clearlier wrote: »

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that P&D try to get two birds with their strides stone and end up missing both.

There's a place for the alactic development and is what I think should be there in place of the strides they prescribe.

There's also a place for strides as part of a set of drills designed to improve your running form but there's a challenge that's not often faced which is how to translate the running drills into real changes in your running form. I don't know the best way of going about improving somebody's running form in paedagogical terms and I'm generally loath to suggest working too much on somebodys form to any great extent unless they are getting injured because of it.

I think P & D's approach is more to do with mental programming than physiological affects, kind of like showing the body a demo of correct form in a controlled manor in an attempt to allow the body to practice it when it comes to their general training compared to running drills which break down the movement pattern.

I would probably not change someones as you say however you can still create better economy within the athletes particular stride pattern without overall and as such I personally would aim to make slight adjustments (have a bit of background with sprinters which probably affects my own perceptions though personally)

ooter · 01-07-2014 12:30pm

I'm totally new to p+d's plans and to strides.
I was listening to Greg McMillan on the latest marathon talk pod talking about how beneficial strides can be so they're obviously important but there seems to be a lot of contradiction about the pace they should actually be ran and for how long.
P+d say 70m and then float for 30m,that's what I did last week anyway?
Would it be any harm to include more of these in to my training or just stick to the plan?

Clearlier · 01-07-2014 12:46pm

ooter wrote: »

I'm totally new to p+d's plans and to strides.
I was listening to Greg McMillan on the latest marathon talk pod talking about how beneficial strides can be so they're obviously important but there seems to be a lot of contradiction about the pace they should actually be ran and for how long.
P+d say 70m and then float for 30m,that's what I did last week anyway?
Would it be any harm to include more of these in to my training or just stick to the plan?

Yeah, that's what this thread is about.

What plan are you following?

dna_leri · 01-07-2014 12:50pm

I don't see why marathon runners would want to work on their alactic system.
I also don't see how strides with full recoveries will impact your ability to develop your aerobic system.
The "muscle fibre recruitment" argument makes some sense.

Steve Magness on strides:

Strides are short repeats of usually 100-150m in distance done at faster speeds with plenty of recovery. Generally, strides are done at between 5k and 1 mile pace depending on the goal. Strides after runs serve several functions. First, they are a way to maintain speed during periods of heavy aerobic running, as they reinforce good biomechanics and the recruitment of Fast Twitch muscle fibers. Secondly, strides can be used to work on running form, or work a little on muscle recruitment in a semi fatigued state since they are performed after a distance run. Lastly, strides are a way of altering muscle tension...

Magness, Steve (2014-02-16). The Science of Running: How to find your limit and train to maximize your performance (Kindle Locations 5633-5638). Origin Press. Kindle Edition.

If the benefit is predominantly neuro-muscular / biomechanical, (rather than cardio-vascular) then the duration and distance won't matter a great deal as long as they are controlled.

Anyway the real point is do they work, for everybody?

ooter · 01-07-2014 12:51pm

Clearlier wrote: »

Yeah, that's what this thread is about.

What plan are you following?

Up to 55 mile programme, it's only my 2nd marathon.

Clearlier · 01-07-2014 1:16pm

ooter wrote: »

Up to 55 mile programme, it's only my 2nd marathon.

I'm actually following the same plan (although I don't honestly expect to make it as far as October but I needed something to hang my hat on). I have a one mile loop where I do some of my runs and it has a short sharp hill which I'm hitting at a very high but controlled effort for 8 - 10 seconds every lap. I think that it's better than doing them at the end but it is still at the experimental stage.

yaboya1 · 01-07-2014 1:41pm

pconn062 wrote: »

I have often wondered what is the point of a marathon runner doing strides, what relation does it have to the overall training? As Clearlier says it is not long enough to have an impact of form or efficiency compared to the hours of slow running that you are going to do. I see runners on here logging 10x100m strides done in 18-19 seconds (72/75 second 400m pace) and wonder what's the point. Obviously I think strides are important for middle distance runners but would be performed at much closer to full speed.

So, I'm not sure if you are actually talking about me, but this does sound exactly like me. I've adopted a 'do what I'm told' approach as my previous 'run every training run as fast as I can' got me injured. Since P&D advises these strides, I just blindly follow it. Am I right/wrong? Would I be better off doing the 8 second bursts suggested or none at all as I never race below 5k?

pconn062 · 01-07-2014 1:56pm

yaboya1 wrote: »

So, I'm not sure if you are actually talking about me, but this does sound exactly like me. I've adopted a 'do what I'm told' approach as my previous 'run every training run as fast as I can' got me injured. Since P&D advises these strides, I just blindly follow it. Am I right/wrong? Would I be better off doing the 8 second bursts suggested or none at all as I never race below 5k?

No, I wasn't referring to you, just a general thing I have seen and I have the P+D book as well so seen it in there before. I was just wondering what the possible benefits were. Strides are used in middle distance running mainly for two reasons, to touch on top speed (stressing the alactic system as mentioned before) and to help improve/correct good running form. But as Clearlier says running form is not going to be improved by a few strides every week. But ecoli has pointed out some benefits and to be honest, I don't think they can hurt anyway and aren't going to do any harm providing they are done at the correct pace. They might also provide a bit of a change to trudging about at easy paces all week.

ecoli · 01-07-2014 2:15pm

dna_leri wrote: »

I don't see why marathon runners would want to work on their alactic system.

I would see the neural capacity as being hugely important in terms of voluntary muscular contractions in the later stages of a race. I haven't seen any studies but I would be interested to see the correlation between cramping during a marathon and how long it takes to return to normal training post event to aim to determine the effects of neuromuscular fatigue beyond the usual muscle fiber damage

dna_leri wrote: »

If the benefit is predominantly neuro-muscular / biomechanical, (rather than cardio-vascular) then the duration and distance won't matter a great deal as long as they are controlled.

I think this comes down to how taxing this sort of work is on the CNS (in alactic sprints) hence the duration however if the aim is simply in terms of putting your body through corrective movements as a way of "teaching" your body how to run efficiently I would agree which is why I generally keep the distance arbitrary

dna_leri · 01-07-2014 2:57pm

ecoli wrote: »

I would see the neural capacity as being hugely important in terms of voluntary muscular contractions in the later stages of a race. I haven't seen any studies but I would be interested to see the correlation between cramping during a marathon and how long it takes to return to normal training post event to aim to determine the effects of neuromuscular fatigue beyond the usual muscle fiber damage

I think this comes down to how taxing this sort of work is on the CNS (in alactic sprints) hence the duration however if the aim is simply in terms of putting your body through corrective movements as a way of "teaching" your body how to run efficiently I would agree which is why I generally keep the distance arbitrary

I think we are saying the same thing: strides are not about developing a certain energy system, they are about developing the neuromuscular system.

RayCun · 01-07-2014 3:08pm

dna_leri wrote: »

I think we are saying the same thing: strides are not about developing a certain energy system, they are about developing the neuromuscular system.

So in terms of neuromuscular development, would 15-20 seconds at mile pace on the flat compare to shorter, harder (uphill or faster) strides? Because in both cases you are stopping before form deteriorates?

ecoli · 01-07-2014 3:32pm

dna_leri wrote: »

I think we are saying the same thing: strides are not about developing a certain energy system, they are about developing the neuromuscular system.

True but you can't really look at either in isolation given the close relationship between the CNS and Energy expenditure/hormonal regulation, the energy pathway's used can play a role (could be wrong on this point so feel free anyone to correct me)

Clearlier · 01-07-2014 5:05pm

dna_leri wrote: »

I think we are saying the same thing: strides are not about developing a certain energy system, they are about developing the neuromuscular system.

Just to be clear I'm suggesting that strides during an aerobic development phase should be about the energy system.

That doesn't rule out strides being used with drills and exercises as part of a rehab/prehab plan aimed at improving your running skill.

Other point to note is that in the overall scheme of things this is a detail (unless ecoli's idea about cramping are accurate) that will have a pretty small impact on your time.

Krusty_Clown · 01-07-2014 5:31pm

pconn062 wrote: »

No, I wasn't referring to you, just a general thing I have seen and I have the P+D book as well so seen it in there before. I was just wondering what the possible benefits were. Strides are used in middle distance running mainly for two reasons, to touch on top speed (stressing the alactic system as mentioned before) and to help improve/correct good running form. But as Clearlier says running form is not going to be improved by a few strides every week. But ecoli has pointed out some benefits and to be honest, I don't think they can hurt anyway and aren't going to do any harm providing they are done at the correct pace. They might also provide a bit of a change to trudging about at easy paces all week.

You're really down on the long distance runners at the moment! Worth remembering, that though many of the marathon runners need to do a lot of aerobic running, many of them will include more quality and faster intervals than many middle distance runners. So what is a long distance runner? Essentially a non-lazy middle distance runner.

career move · 01-07-2014 8:56pm

ecoli wrote: »

I would see the neural capacity as being hugely important in terms of voluntary muscular contractions in the later stages of a race. I haven't seen any studies but I would be interested to see the correlation between cramping during a marathon and how long it takes to return to normal training post event to aim to determine the effects of neuromuscular fatigue beyond the usual muscle fiber damage

I think this comes down to how taxing this sort of work is on the CNS (in alactic sprints) hence the duration however if the aim is simply in terms of putting your body through corrective movements as a way of "teaching" your body how to run efficiently I would agree which is why I generally keep the distance arbitrary

I was reading an article* from irunfar on cramping which backs up those ideas. In summary the article maintains that:
- Muscle cramping is a neurological, “electrical” phenomenon, likely centered in the central nervous system, where reflexes become unbalanced, affecting the muscle.
- The muscle is most susceptible to cramping with prolonged fatigue and (according to Noakes), when we “run faster than we should.”
- Sodium or electrolyte balance – in the blood stream or muscle cell – has zero effect on cramping.
- Sodium (and possibly water, sugar, and fat) tasting in the mouth (and possibly upper GI tract) does have a positive effect: dampening cramping and improving performance. But the rapidity of this effect suggests that it is the brain alone that creates this effect.
- Muscles most affected by cramping are those repetitively used and confined to a small arc of motion.
- The only known treatments to cramping are to slow down, stop, and stretch the muscle to a maximally lengthened state.
- People who have suffered cramp previously are more likely to do so again

And just to keep my point on topic because cramps are linked to repetitive muscle action, one of the ways to reduce their occurrence is to run more efficiently having a balanced stride with adequate knee and hip flexion and extension. And I think doing strides in training helps to train your body to do that

*sorry can't link cause I'm a newbie!

pconn062 · 01-07-2014 10:34pm

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

You're really down on the long distance runners at the moment! Worth remembering, that though many of the marathon runners need to do a lot of aerobic running, many of them will include more quality and faster intervals than many middle distance runners. So what is a long distance runner? Essentially a non-lazy middle distance runner.

Not my intention at all I assure you! I was merely querying why does the P+D plan or JD plan include strides. What is the actual benefit of running 10 reps of 100m at your 3k pace? What is the training stimulus or do you just do it because it's written in the plan? I like to know why I do things in training before I do it!
As for the interval thing, I appreciate that some marathon runners do lots of interval work and a lot of the basic plans call for easy running, with some running at marathon/threshold pace and even some 5k sessions. But I don't think it's true to say that marathon runners will do many more faster (fast being a relative term to the individual) intervals than many middle distance runner, unless their middle distance training sucks! The hardest working runners I know are mostly middle distance runners.
And if my comment about easy running came across as negative, it wasn't meant to. The majority of my own running is easy running, the comment was simply meant that strides might break up the monotony of easy running, they do for me anyway.

Krusty_Clown · 01-07-2014 10:54pm

pconn062 wrote: »

Not my intention at all I assure you! I was merely querying why does the P+D plan or JD plan include strides. What is the actual benefit of running 10 reps of 100m at your 3k pace? What is the training stimulus or do you just do it because it's written in the plan? I like to know why I do things in training before I do it!
As for the interval thing, I appreciate that some marathon runners do lots of interval work and a lot of the basic plans call for easy running, with some running at marathon/threshold pace and even some 5k sessions. But I don't think it's true to say that marathon runners will do many more faster (fast being a relative term to the individual) intervals than many middle distance runner, unless their middle distance training sucks! The hardest working runners I know are mostly middle distance runners.
And if my comment about easy running came across as negative, it wasn't meant to. The majority of my own running is easy running, the comment was simply meant that strides might break up the monotony of easy running, they do for me anyway.

My reply was very much tongue in cheek. My own belief is that the reason that strides are an important part of a marathon plan, is as a direct response to all of that aerobic running. High mileage results in fatigue; fatigue negatively impacts running form, and lots of aerobic miles can compound that poor running form, so it becomes habit forming. The strides serve less as a training stimulus and more as general maintenance (like strength work, stretching, and conditioning). Daniels doesn't schedule strides, but instead suggests that you should include strides after a couple of days of easy runs. They also provide a mental stimulus and break up the aerobic run patterns, so you don't spend too much time 'dialing in' a specific pace.

Personally, I don't measure the distance or time of my strides, as I feel it's unnecessary and detracts from the primary focus, which is running form. Instead I accelerate to required pace (typically around 5 min/mile) and count 80 strides (1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,....20,20,20,20), which generally equates to around 180-190m. Works for me.

pconn062 · 01-07-2014 11:06pm

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

My reply was very much tongue in cheek. My own belief is that the reason that strides are an important part of a marathon plan, is as a direct response to all of that aerobic running. High mileage results in fatigue; fatigue negatively impacts running form, and lots of aerobic miles can compound that poor running form, so it becomes habit forming. The strides serve less as a training stimulus and more as general maintenance (like strength work, stretching, and conditioning). Daniels doesn't schedule strides, but instead suggests that you should include strides after a couple of days of easy runs. They also provide a mental stimulus and break up the aerobic run patterns, so you don't spend too much time 'dialing in' a specific pace.

Personally, I don't measure the distance or time of my strides, as I feel it's unnecessary and detracts from the primary focus, which is running form. Instead I accelerate to required pace (typically around 5 min/mile) and count 80 strides (1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,....20,20,20,20), which generally equates to around 180-190m. Works for me.

Very interesting points, and I like you counting method! And the irony was lost on me, damn internet speak and it's inability to transfer sarcasm well! We need more emoticons!

:pac::D

pa4 · 02-07-2014 8:14pm

I've a question about strides, should they be incorporated into your run or should they be done afterwards? Which is more beneficial or does it matter?

I usually do around 5-6 50m strides at slower than 1 mile pace depending on how I'm feeling really. If I'm warming up for a session I'll do around 4-5 100m strides (after some drills) at 5k pace followed by a few short sprints (40m max).

Clearlier · 02-07-2014 10:39pm

pa4 wrote: »

I've a question about strides, should they be incorporated into your run or should they be done afterwards? Which is more beneficial or does it matter?

I usually do around 5-6 50m strides at slower than 1 mile pace depending on how I'm feeling really. If I'm warming up for a session I'll do around 4-5 100m strides (after some drills) at 5k pace followed by a few short sprints (40m max).

Either can be done. It depends on their purpose. If you're to develop your alactic system then I think that you can include them mid run but with plenty of time in between each one. If it's about working on your form then you should do them rested so after a warm but not at the end of your run unless it's a short recovery run.

I'd wonder about the short sprints in preparation for a session but if they work for you then don't change it.

dna_leri · 03-07-2014 9:12am

Clearlier wrote: »

Just to be clear I'm suggesting that strides during an aerobic development phase should be about the energy system.

.

Just to be clear, I am suggesting that is a waste of time.

TFBubendorfer · 03-07-2014 9:49am

Clearlier wrote: »

Just to be clear I'm suggesting that strides during an aerobic development phase should be about the energy system.

That's the opposite of what I was made to believe. It's about neuromuscular development.

What use would the alactic energy system be to distance runners?

Clearlier · 03-07-2014 10:20am

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

That's the opposite of what I was made to believe. It's about neuromuscular development.

What use would the alactic energy system be to distance runners?

I'm getting most of this from interpreting Healthy Intelligent Training and it probably merits a re-read in a bit more detail by me.

I should probably have said that strides during the aerobic phase should only touch on the alactic energy system not necessarily that it's about particularly developing that system although in practice there's little difference.

One reason for focusing on the alactic energy system is to avoid engaging the anaerobic system which it is argued will cause acidosis (as I said before above my level of understanding) which inhibits aerobic development. However as I've understood it, it's mostly a way of maintaining speed throughout a phase which can lead to some runners feeling a bit sluggish.

Krusty_Clown · 03-07-2014 10:25am

Clearlier wrote: »

One reason for focusing on the alactic energy system is to avoid engaging the anaerobic system which it is argued will cause acidosis (as I said before above my level of understanding) which inhibits aerobic development.

Wouldn't the strides have to be at least 800m long, before you'd start engaging the anaerobic system?

Clearlier · 03-07-2014 10:28am

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Wouldn't the strides have to be at least 800m long, before you'd start engaging the anaerobic system?

Well, it depends upon the intensity of your running of course but if you're going at max effort it would be after about 8 - 10 seconds apparently.

RayCun · 03-07-2014 10:29am

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Wouldn't the strides have to be at least 800m long, before you'd start engaging the anaerobic system?

no, the anaerobic system kicks in much earlier, ATP-CP only lasts about 10 seconds

TFBubendorfer · 03-07-2014 10:37am

Clearlier wrote: »

I'm getting most of this from interpreting Healthy Intelligent Training and it probably merits a re-read in a bit more detail by me.

I should probably have said that strides during the aerobic phase should only touch on the alactic energy system not necessarily that it's about particularly developing that system although in practice there's little difference.

One reason for focusing on the alactic energy system is to avoid engaging the anaerobic system which it is argued will cause acidosis (as I said before above my level of understanding) which inhibits aerobic development. However as I've understood it, it's mostly a way of maintaining speed throughout a phase which can lead to some runners feeling a bit sluggish.

I have read Healthy Intelligent Training, but that was a few years ago and I cannot remember all the details.

However, I was coached by a Lydiard-influenced coach (I think he actually knows Keith Livingstone) and he mentioned strides and short hill-sprints on a few occasions but always talked about them in terms of "muscle fibre activation" ("you have to activate your fibres before you can condition them")

Clearlier · 03-07-2014 10:50am

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I have read Healthy Intelligent Training, but that was a few years ago and I cannot remember all the details.

However, I was coached by a Lydiard-influenced coach (I think he actually knows Keith Livingstone) and he mentioned strides and short hill-sprints on a few occasions but always talked about them in terms of "muscle fibre activation" ("you have to activate your fibres before you can condition them")

I remember. Your race report from Vienna is still the best race report I've ever read!

That would suggest that there's a discussion to be had about why you do them rather than if or do you think that they're unnecessary or counterproductive?

TFBubendorfer · 03-07-2014 11:58am

Clearlier wrote: »

I remember. Your race report from Vienna is still the best race report I've ever read!

Thanks

Clearlier wrote:

That would suggest that there's a discussion to be had about why you do them rather than if or do you think that they're unnecessary or counterproductive?

True, and if 2 runners do the same strides, and 1 thinks it's for neuromusculatr development and teh other for alactic energy development, does it really matter?

I suppose, if someone comes along and proves that (say) alactic energy is useless for marathon runners, the second runner might stop doing them.

This does remind me of the brain-training book I read a few years ago. Turns out, the workouts were all of the same style as traditional training workouts but all of a sudden the reasoning had completely changed. Now you were supposed to do tempo runs purely to get your brain used to high-effort running instead of raising your lactate threshold (<-- or anaerobic, or whatever else). There was quite a lot of hype surrounding that book, in retrospect I wonder what that was all about.

TFBubendorfer · 03-07-2014 11:59am

Oh, and no, I don't think that strides are either unnecessary or even counter-productive. I should do them more often myself (I simply tend to forget)

Krusty_Clown · 03-07-2014 12:00pm

RayCun wrote: »

no, the anaerobic system kicks in much earlier, ATP-CP only lasts about 10 seconds

I suppose it depends on how fast you are running the strides, right?

RayCun · 03-07-2014 12:01pm

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I suppose it depends on how fast you are running the strides, right?

if it takes you 800m to exhaust your ATP-CP, you're doing it wrong

pa4 · 03-07-2014 8:35pm

Clearlier wrote: »

Either can be done. It depends on their purpose. If you're to develop your alactic system then I think that you can include them mid run but with plenty of time in between each one. If it's about working on your form then you should do them rested so after a warm but not at the end of your run unless it's a short recovery run.

I'd wonder about the short sprints in preparation for a session but if they work for you then don't change it.

Thanks, I might start incorporating them into my run rather than leaving them until afterwards. I'd be also less likely to skip them!

About the short sprints before a session, I find if I don't do them (especially before a shorter session such as 200s) I wont feel the same bounce in the legs. There're not flat out sprints, slower than 200m pace but I find them great after the longer, slower strides to get my body fired up for a session.

ooter · 03-07-2014 9:13pm

Apologies if this is a silly question but are strides a good idea to do as part of a warm up before a race?

pa4 · 03-07-2014 9:18pm

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2010/03/key-to-running-fast-on-race-day-muscle.html

A good article on muscle tension by Steve Magness which talks a bit about strides. And to answer the above question, I've never ran a race without doing strides beforehand and even my last easy run before the race I'll always do strides.

ooter · 03-07-2014 10:24pm

Thanks pa4.
I'll have to start incorporating them in to my training and warm ups,last week was the first time I ever did them and I'd never heard of them till I picked up p+d's book.

Oregano_State · 15-04-2015 7:16pm

I wrote a pretty detailed post about strides earlier and then got distracted and ended up losing it before posting. Doh!

Will come back to it tonight at some stage.

demfad · 16-04-2015 3:37pm

Ill nip in before you Oregano while youre writing that up.

I reckon you should always be doing something about your leg turnover even during base-building. These "speed maintenance" workouts include long strides, build-ups and hill strides. They provide a variety in footstrikes and muscle fiber recruitment, which can not only keep you in touch with speed but can also help prevent injury.

Examples of speed maintenance workouts:

1) Two to three sets of 5-6 buildups of 15-25 secs (with any wind)
Jog back (or equal distance) between each (jogging 5-10 min between sets).

The first buildups in each set should be the slowest, but each set can be started slightly faster than the previous one.

Every 2-3 weeks add a fast 2-7 min run following the last set.

2) Another speed maintenance session could be 2 sets of 5-6 x 30-35 secs. progressively faster even paced strides.og back (or equal distance) between each (jogging 5-10 min between sets). These can also be run as 200m reps on a track (with the wind, if any)

3) 10-12 progressively faster 12-15 secs. uphill reps finishing really fast.
You should avoid tying up and make sure you can hold form.

Id agree with the OP that you should also be conscious to maintain a light fast turnover during all easy running.

Strides - How do you do them?

Comments