Increasing stride lenght

Woddle

I have set a goal of running a fast 10k-5 mile this summer. I feel with all the marathon training and easy runs that I've done have given me a smaller stride lenght. How do I increase my stride without overstriding. Is it a matter of just running faster in training or is there specific drills I should be doing. I don't know if its a silly question, just I was telling my plans to my uncle and this was just one thing on his list that he mentioned to me.

christeb

I've been thinking about this too. I read in Pfitzinger that cycling too much can decrease this, and I'm cycling 100km per week to / from work.

I was thinking something like 100m of strides a few times per run might help without turning an aerobic run into something more?

shels4ever

christeb wrote: »

I've been thinking about this too. I read in Pfitzinger that cycling too much can decrease this, and I'm cycling 100km per week to / from work.

I was thinking something like 100m of strides a few times per run might help without turning an aerobic run into something more?

As far as I know doing hill reps can improve this,
There is a chapter in a book i have on this very issue i can give you a loan of it if you need.

Woddle

christeb wrote: »

I've been thinking about this too. I read in Pfitzinger that cycling too much can decrease this, and I'm cycling 100km per week to / from work.

I was thinking something like 100m of strides a few times per run might help without turning an aerobic run into something more?

Yep I have them in the bi-weekly speed thread, for improving basic speed and leg turnover and thats all from Pfitzinger too so I'm looking for other methods aswell.

shels4ever

Have a read of this
http://books.google.ie/books?id=qOgIdirlYrwC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=kevin+beck+stride+length&source=bl&ots=xDdXqRdy9T&sig=lliC_2RRBnTzZOhyuzldxdFgYBE&hl=en&ei=Fh33Sf7cNoPW-AaQgpnCDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

RoyMcC

One easily learnt method of increasing stride length is to work on the recovery leg - i.e. when your foot leaves the ground make it more active, bring the heel up higher. You'll find that this will automatically lengthen your stride. Not dramatically, but a few cm per stride soon add up.

A standard track drill is butt kicks - flick your butt with your heels quickly, on the spot then, with the same movements move forward slowly before breaking into (say) a 30m run. This exaggerated drill helps makes the recovery foot naturally more active when running.

I know this is obvious to most on here, but you do NOT increase stride length by reaching out in front of you with your lead leg.

I'm sure Mr Tingle has some input on this.

Seres

shels4ever wrote: »

As far as I know doing hill reps can improve this,
There is a chapter in a book i have on this very issue i can give you a loan of it if you need.

I can vouch for that shels , the course i used to run on alot last year had loads of hills and i found this really helped my stride lenght on flat surfaces , there was a significant impovement

tunney

Over striding is one of the biggest mistakes people make. Your foot should strike the ground in front of your bodies centre of gravity.

Woddle

So I tried combining what RoyMcC and Tunney said and well I would say I looked quite funny, it felt very foreign to me, I did a session of 10x100 and tried to bring my heel up to the crease of my butt before bringing it back down under my body. I'll keep giving this a go, it def takes alot of concentrating.

Racing Flat

Woddle wrote: »

So I tried combining what RoyMcC and Tunney said and well I would say I looked quite funny, it felt very foreign to me, I did a session of 10x100 and tried to bring my heel up to the crease of my butt before bringing it back down under my body. I'll keep giving this a go, it def takes alot of concentrating.

Just run away as you were and you'll be fine. No need to worry about increasing stride length.

uglyjohn

this may seem like a stupid question, but how will you know if you make any progress? do you try and count strides over a given distance at a certain pace? can you feel the difference or how will it work?

RoyMcC

Racing Flat wrote: »

Just run away as you were and you'll be fine. No need to worry about increasing stride length.

That's fine, but there are only TWO ways of running faster. They are to

1. Increase leg turnover and/or
2. Increase stride length

I suggest that it is not correct to dismiss one of these.

thirstywork

Racing Flat wrote: »

Just run away as you were and you'll be fine. No need to worry about increasing stride length.

Listen to Racing Flat,just go out and run.
people worry about way too much,id concentrate on upper body form more and the legs will run as they like.

BeepBeep67

uglyjohn wrote: »

this may seem like a stupid question, but how will you know if you make any progress? do you try and count strides over a given distance at a certain pace? can you feel the difference or how will it work?

Count how many times your right foot hits the ground over 1 min - average runners are typically in the mid 70's range - fast runners in the mid 80's and Elite 90+.
This is the easier to work on and measure - actually a session can go faster when you are counting 1 min of every 5.

BeepBeep67

Actually here is a workout from the RW site:

The Workout

To learn what a faster stride rate feels like, try some downhill strides once a week. Your ultimate goal is 180 strides per minute, no matter your pace.

>>Find a very gentle downhill on grass or even dirt that is 50 to 100 meters long.

>>Run two to three easy miles to warm up.

>>Begin at the top of the slight slope and allow gravity to ease you into a controlled acceleration as you descend. The downhill naturally helps you increase your turnover. Jog back to the starting point.

>>Try four to six downhill strides. Cool down with a couple of easy miles.

thirtyfoot

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Actually here is a workout from the RW site:

The Workout

To learn what a faster stride rate feels like, try some downhill strides once a week. Your ultimate goal is 180 strides per minute, no matter your pace.

>>Find a very gentle downhill on grass or even dirt that is 50 to 100 meters long.

>>Run two to three easy miles to warm up.

>>Begin at the top of the slight slope and allow gravity to ease you into a controlled acceleration as you descend. The downhill naturally helps you increase your turnover. Jog back to the starting point.

>>Try four to six downhill strides. Cool down with a couple of easy miles.

That program could be dangerous as you will overstride and it will not be normal body mechanics. The landing foot will be ahead of the centre of gravity, the foot won't be dorsiflexed and you are more susceptible to injury.

Drills like the Mach Drills (a,b,c) will help you running technique but the cross-over to actually running can be slow and take time and some say none at all although I do find benefits.

I'd say working on strength and flexibility (not necessarily stretching), hip flexors, glutes, hamstrings etc will result in a stronger stride. Consciously attempting to lengthen it will be disasterous. Everyone has their own mechanical setup and posture and attempting to tweak it can be dodgy in my opinion unless you really understand how the body and the body of the particular athlete work. The old wives tale of Lance Armstrong's positioning on the bike being not at the optimium. Various experts and biomechanists were looking at it and changing it to which his physio or someone retorted that yes scientifically it looks like he should change his position on the bike but then again it is Lance Armstrong and does he really need to change it. I don't think they changed it as it worked for him. Look at Michael Johnson or Paul Hession, on the face of it very weird technique but perfect for them. John Ngugi the Kenyan had a weird technique and loopy stride. Roisin McGettigan has a pitter patter and while Fionnula Britton is more gangly and they do the same event. The Chinese girls vs Sonia has pitter patters. Its very individual I'd say and hard to gauge whether tweaking is needed or not.

mrak

This is a dangerously titled thread. An attempt to increase stride length will result in injury - knees in particular. Advice on hills, etc is fine. I think if the thread were renamed "increasing stride strength" it would make more sense. If you are stronger it will give the impression to an observer of a longer stride since you have covered more ground, but the stride length and cadence is still the same.

thirtyfoot

mrak wrote: »

If you are stronger it will give the impression to an observer of a longer stride since you have covered more ground, but the stride length and cadence is still the same.

I would think your stride length will change if you are stronger. I see with 400m hurdlers as they get faster and stronger that their stride pattern will change over time.

For example, they may have 15 strides between hurdles. Due to increased speed (gained through strength, flexibility, fitness and all the other things that make you faster) they may start having to use 14 strides. Now their time between the hurdles may only change slightly (by 0.1-0.2 secs) if at all with the less stride but they are covering the same distance. So here it may be a case that their cadence is less, ie, 14 strides instead of 15, but their stride length is longer, ie, 35m covered in 14 instead of 15 strides.

It’s an interesting one that I’ve never thought about before but if they are covering the same distance in the same time with one less stride that is obviously saving a huge amount of energy. Same applies at distance as I assume a stride whether its 2.00m or 1.50m will use the same amount of energy as long as it’s a natural stride for the runner.

RoyMcC

mrak wrote: »

This is a dangerously titled thread. An attempt to increase stride length will result in injury - knees in particular. Advice on hills, etc is fine. I think if the thread were renamed "increasing stride strength" it would make more sense. If you are stronger it will give the impression to an observer of a longer stride since you have covered more ground, but the stride length and cadence is still the same.

Not necessarily. A number of things can incrementally increase stride length without being dangerous. Strong legs (via hill work etc) is most definitely one, hip flexibility work is another, working on the recovery leg etc. If your cadence remains the same and you can naturally stride (say) 1cm further each time then you go faster.

If Usain Bolt can run 100m in 29 strides to his rivals' 30 strides then Bolt wins, if everything else is equal.

But of course it would be quite wrong to strive unnaturally for stride length, as Tingle says. The knock-on effects elsewhere could indeed be damaging and dangerous.

mrak

Of course you'll cover more ground in less strides because you are moving faster with more power. The point is that you aren't stretching your leg out further or anything daft like that or trying to run with wide bounding steps, it is increased strength that is making you cover the ground in less strides - not increased length (angle) of stride. Making a conscious effort to stretch your legs out further sounds sensible but is a fools game. I know this is what you are getting at but it's easy for someone who doen't have a clue to look at this thread and say "oh I need to stretch my legs out more than I am with each stride" - those guys will end up crocked.

Edit:

RoyMcC wrote: »

If your cadence remains the same and you can naturally stride (say) 1cm further each time then you go faster.

If Usain Bolt can run 100m in 29 strides to his rivals' 30 strides then Bolt wins, if everything else is equal.

You are mixing up consequence with cause I think. Bolt is not able to run faster than everyone else because he does it in 29 strides - he is running it in 29 strides because he is faster than everyone else. Similarly - if you are running faster you will have a 1cm (or more) longer stride.

If you decide to run with a longer stride, or the 100m in just 29 strides you will run slower and end up crocked.

RoyMcC

Totally agree mrak. But I don't think anyone reading this thread would be mad enough to suddenly change their style in that way. But also it is (I think) wrong not to understand how an athlete could improve their performance by working at different aspects of it. As Clive Woodward says, 'improve 100 things by 1%'.

mrak - just seen your edit. Bolt is faster because of either or both of (1) his leg turnover and (2) his stride length. They are the two variables that make you go fast, or slow.

mrak

Eh okay but the way to "lengthen" your stride is to be able to deliver more power with each step, not to change how your legs move. You are hitting the ground in the same spot each time - i.e. just under you. You can run with short clipped steps but still deliver a lot of power into the ground with each step. For example look at supervet Gerry Ryan from Galway who runs sub-30 minute 10ks with a tiny stride and normal cadence of around 180. His stride is shorter than mine and his cadence is the same. However - the ground he covers with each step is greater, and the short stride gives him super efficiency.

I injured my knee when I was starting out trying to get faster by stretching my legs more. In distance running it's more useful to work on shortening your stride than lengthening it.

thirtyfoot

mrak wrote: »

Eh okay but the way to "lengthen" your stride is to be able to deliver more power with each step, not to change how your legs move. You are hitting the ground in the same spot each time - i.e. just under you. You can run with short clipped steps but still deliver a lot of power into the ground with each step. For example look at supervet Gerry Ryan from Galway who runs sub-30 minute 10ks with a tiny stride and normal cadence of around 180. His stride is shorter than mine and his cadence is the same. However - the ground he covers with each step is greater, and the short stride gives him super efficiency.

I injured my knee when I was starting out trying to get faster by stretching my legs more. In distance running it's more useful to work on shortening your stride than lengthening it.

I don't understand this.

Lets say you and Gerry Ryan have the same cadence, eg, 10 strides in 5 sec. Your stride is longer, say 2m to Gerry's 1m. In that 5 seconds you cover 10 x 2 = 20m while Gerry will cover 10 x 1 = 10m. Am I missing something here or are my sums wrong? Gerry's must have higher cadence if he has a shorter stride than you yet runs faster. If Gerry's faster times than you is coming from his power, where is he gaining from having this extra power. His stride length, no as thats shorter than you. His cadence, no as thats the same as you. Doesn't make sense to me.

Changing how your legs move will change your stride and may naturally lengthen it. If for example you follow RoyMcC's advice and correctly position your foot when in the swing with dorsiflexion and tucked in nicely you will be creating and storing more energy in those leg muscles for when they hit the ground and as a result, which you correctly point out, have more power. None of this can be looked at in isolation though.

Saying distance runners should shorten their stride is not good advice and as bad as saying people should consciously lenghten their stride (which nobody here is saying anyway).

BeepBeep67

For the Chi running believers a little read on cadence.

http://www.chirunning.com/shop/pages.php?tab=r&pageid=18&id=27

mrak

Hi Tingle - the math is grand if you define stride as the length of ground covered with each step which is clearly what you are saying when you talk about 2m. However if you ask many people what someone with a long stride looks like they think of the distance between your feet when you're running - the length of the step[/u]. It's quite possible to take a short clipped step but still cover a lot of ground with each step because you are strong and a lot of the time you are in the air.

I am nobody to advise anyone - I'm just an average club runner with a long history of injury and training errors as my experience catalog so take anything I say with a pinch of salt. It's common knowledge though that the number 1 mistake of most peoples running is that their stride (step) is too long. Shortening stride won't injure anyone and is a good idea if you're carrying a knock. Look up any studies describing best running technique e.g. pose running, chi-running, etc. All of them advise people to shorten their stride and work on power to cover more ground with each step. This fits in with my own experience.

Woddle

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

For the Chi running believers a little read on cadence.

http://www.chirunning.com/shop/pages.php?tab=r&pageid=18&id=27

A good read but how do you that pick up your cadence

thirtyfoot

mrak wrote: »

Hi Tingle - the math is grand if you define stride as the length of ground covered with each step which is clearly what you are saying when you talk about 2m. However if you ask many people what someone with a long stride looks like they think of the distance between your feet when you're running - the length of the step[/u]. It's quite possible to take a short clipped step but still cover a lot of ground with each step because you are strong and a lot of the time you are in the air.

.

If you agree with the maths then that blows your theory out of the water.
There is only one way to measure stride as far as I know. Foot 1 hits the ground, foot 2 hits the ground and the distance between is your stride. You seem to be advocating staying in the air for a long time. That is very, very inefficient as you want to go horizontal not vertical. You get your power from the ground force. If you legs are positioned correctly and all your body is positioned correctly when ground force happens then you'll generate max force, not gliding like a ballerina.

mrak wrote: »

Shortening stride won't injure anyone and is a good idea if you're carrying a knock. Look up any studies describing best running technique e.g. pose running, chi-running, etc. All of them advise people to shorten their stride and work on power to cover more ground with each step. This fits in with my own experience.

Shortening stride when injured or carrying a knock. That could make the matter worse. Telling people to shorten their stride could see many people radically changing their natural stride pattern but thankfully as RoyMcC says most people will have common sense to not take it literally. So if you are going to consciously shorten your stride you will need to increase cadence. In my experience that can kill you and burn a lot of energy.

Don't deliberatetly shorten or lenghten stride, learn the proper mechanics of running, ensure you are strong enough, flexible enough (or inflexible enough). All the points mentioned in the pose & chi running link back this up as chi and pose are only clever marketing of theory that has been there for years.

BeepBeep67

Woddle wrote: »

A good read but how do you that pick up your cadence

Allow your stride to shorten but keep the pace the same

mrak

When you go faster (through more cadence or power) your stride length naturally increases as distance is directly related to speed. That's my point - people don't need to worry about stride length as it's just a side-effect of going fast. All runners travel through the air between steps - that's what makes it different from race walking - there is a significant period where no foot is on the ground. Again the faster you go the more distance you'll cover in the air. This happens naturally and isn't something you have to aim for by working on flexibility or other.. I've seen several people crocked (including myself) by attempting to go fast by increasing the length of step and just posted to help others avoid the same mistake. Cadence and power are the things in your control - stride length is a side-effect of these. The reason people are often advised to shorten their stride is that it is a simple way to increase cadence.

Ah I don't want to keep going over and back esp as we are all more or less saying the same thing. I can only speak for distance running not sprints or hurdles which I don't know anything about.

asimonov

I came across this useful piece of video analysis on youtube here a couple of weeks ago of the men and women elites running in boston '08.

It shows how their good technique gives a long stride length whilst not over-stretching, their feet still land under their centre of gravity and their "hind foot" keeps active. I understood that the long stride length is a by-product of the right technique rather than it being the goal in itself.

RoyMcC

Thanks asimov, a picture is worth a thousand words. Personally I'm gobsmacked at the 'flytime' of these elite runners :eek: I'm sure my flytime is pretty much zip.

Racing Flat

RoyMcC wrote: »

That's fine, but there are only TWO ways of running faster. They are to

1. Increase leg turnover and/or
2. Increase stride length

I suggest that it is not correct to dismiss one of these.

I didn''t dismiss either of these, rather based on seeing Woddle run and observing nothing abnormal about his stride length, I feel that concentrating on improving running endurance, speed endurance and speed will be more appropriate than trying to change his running mechanics for now.

RoyMcC wrote: »

If Usain Bolt can run 100m in 29 strides to his rivals' 30 strides then Bolt wins, if everything else is equal.

To me this is just like saying 'If Usain Bolt is 6'5 and his competitors are 6'3, then Bolt wins if everything else is equal. ie. if you're taller you probably have longer legs, if you have longer legs you probably have a longer stride length.

mrak wrote: »

For example look at supervet Gerry Ryan from Galway who runs sub-30 minute 10ks with a tiny stride and normal cadence of around 180. His stride is shorter than mine and his cadence is the same. However - the ground he covers with each step is greater, and the short stride gives him super efficiency.

The ground he covers with each step is essentially his stride length. So this is a bit confusing. If his stride length his shorter, he must be covering more steps than you, but a lot faster.




How come we can't give medical advice, but we can all give biomechanical advice?

RoyMcC

Racing Flat wrote: »

To me this is just like saying 'If Usain Bolt is 6'5 and his competitors are 6'3, then Bolt wins if everything else is equal. ie. if you're taller you probably have longer legs, if you have longer legs you probably have a longer stride length.

Of course, no one pretends that physical attributes can't help. You don't see many skinny shot putters or short high jumpers.

I think this thread has been useful. Though all may not agree I believe many runners concentrate almost exclusively on their running programmes, logs etc. Which is fine, but there are many other aspects of technique, conditioning etc that deserve examination from time to time. Which is why Woddle opened the topic and will make his own mind up regarding any advice given.

BeepBeep67

**Just for fun experiment**

This thread was running around my head while I was running around Shanganagh this evening - so I conducted a little experiment.


I measured my cadence (SPM - strides per minute) at 8, 7 & 6min pace.

1. 8min pace = 160 SPM
2. 7min pace = 156 SPM
3. 6min pace = 152 SPM

So I strike the ground less when I run faster, was not doing anything differently, but did notice as I increased pace, my rear leg movement was greater - meaning my heal extend closer to the back of my leg.

Now lots of comments regarding stride length versus cadence - so what does that mean for me?

Using the most basic of formulas for stride length; distance covered divided by number of strides (not factoring time on the ground, etc)

1. 8min pace = 79.6 strides per 100m = 1.26mts stride length
2. 7min pace = 67.9 strides per 100m = 1.47mts stride length
3. 6min pace = 56.7 strides per 100m = 1.76mts stride length

So without trying my stride length increases by 40%, but my SPM drops.

How does this compare to an international athlete running 5k @ 13min pace, with 180 SPM.

• 4.2min pace = 47.0 strides per 100m = 2.13 mts stride length

This exercise was just for a bit of fun - I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what to do with the data - except maybe trying to increase my 6min pace SPM to 160 while maintaining stride length - which theroretically means I would be running 5.3% faster I.E. 5:41 pace.
Sounds too simple on paper :rolleyes: