Stride rate and running economy

tunguska

From what I've read and been told, increasing your stride rate to 180(and above) per minute is key in improving running economy. And running economy, even more so than V02 max, seems to be the physical variable that determines how you perform in races.
The question is how can you increase your stride rate without increasing your speed? What I mean by that is all the experts recommend increasing stride rate even on easy runs. But how can you run with increased stride frequency yet still maintain a slow speed on easy runs?

Raighne

tunguska wrote: »

From what I've read and been told, increasing your stride rate to 180(and above) per minute is key in improving running economy. And running economy, even more so than V02 max, seems to be the physical variable that determines how you perform in races.
The question is how can you increase your stride rate without increasing your speed? What I mean by that is all the experts recommend increasing stride rate even on easy runs. But how can you run with increased stride frequency yet still maintain a slow speed on easy runs?

A lot to be said on the complicated topic of running economy but on the way out the door so will answer the direct question: Speed is stride length x stride rate. If you increase stride rate and want to keep the same pace you need to decrease stride length and viceversa.

RoyMcC

tunguska wrote: »

all the experts recommend increasing stride rate even on easy runs.

They do I can't say I've ever picked up on that. The only way it could be done would be to shorten your strides I guess. I'll stick to decreasing stride rate on my easy runs however inefficient.

RacoonQueen

Shorten your stride? It would depend on your gait surely? I couldn't shorten mine, I'm already a high cadence runner but for someone who has a longer stride length increasing your stride rate could be achieved by shortening your stride length.

tunguska

Raighne wrote: »

A lot to be said on the complicated topic of running economy but on the way out the door so will answer the direct question: Speed is stride length x stride rate. If you increase stride rate and want to keep the same pace you need to decrease stride length and viceversa.

That makes sense. Ok let the experiment begin.

ecoli

I presume this is based on Daniels? I don' think that he is saying that you should aim to increase your stride rate but rather than there should be very little difference between your stride rate regardless what what pace you are running. one possible reason for this can be a person is over reaching in their stride which effectively is increasing the injury risk of an athlete

So if your paces are not matching up then in fact increasing seems plausible. An increase stride rate means that your body could generate more power with the same amount of effort as it aims to minimize the amount of time your foot is planted (this is a period when your legs are not generating power to be applied as force at the time of contact with the ground)

This is something which will take some time to do as you are effectively rewiring your legs and as such will feel very awkard at first but in time you will become more efficient at it

But as Raighne said this is not a cut and dry topic and stride rate increase will not automatically correspond to quicker times

tunguska

ecoli wrote: »

But as Raighne said this is not a cut and dry topic and stride rate increase will not automatically correspond to quicker times

I'd like to test the theory out though, I think theres something to it. I've been watching efficient runners in action and they all have high stride rates, very little upper body movement aswell.

ecoli

tunguska wrote: »

I'd like to test the theory out though, I think theres something to it. I've been watching efficient runners in action and they all have high stride rates, very little upper body movement aswell.

Definitly worth trying. Trial and error is the foundation of finding out what training works best for you

seanynova

from what i gather on the topic of stride rate(180bpm) is that it increased economy, reduces the risk of injury by automatically reducing or removing overstriding.

it feels very awkward when first increasing your stride rate...a feat i have not managed to do unless constantly monitoring my stride rate.

three questions:

• to run with high cadence, corresponds to a shorter stride at the same speed. for me, to run slow with high cadence i must take very short baby like steps, is there anything that can be done about that?

• generally if running with high candence, i run a little quicker and my HR is also higher. initially does it take more effort to run with high cadence?

• which is better from a general training/injury prevention point of view, to run faster, at say 7:10m/m at 180strides/min, or run slower at 7:40m/m at 160strides/min?

ecoli

three questions:

• to run with high cadence, corresponds to a shorter stride at the same speed. for me, to run slow with high cadence i must take very short baby like steps, is there anything that can be done about that?

If your cadence is significantly lower than this mark then at first yes, you will feel that it is like taking baby steps but eventually it will start to become more natural. You may not feel comfortable running at 180 spm but you may find when you return to natural stride you in a few months you may find where you normally were running at 160 spm now you may be running at 165 or 170 naturally

• generally if running with high candence, i run a little quicker and my HR is also higher. initially does it take more effort to run with high cadence?

Cadence should not be a result of effort for the most part (though you may find in >800m that there is an increased velocity)

• which is better from a general training/injury prevention point of view, to run faster, at say 7:10m/m at 180strides/min, or run slower at 7:40m/m at 160strides/min?

Again I would refer to the second question. Pace increase would result in effort increase but cadence should not be a bi product of this

seanynova

thanks ecoli,

below is a snip of one of tergats posts on stride rate, which might aid in the discussion:

Improve stride length naturally by running hills! Don't try to lengthen your stride while you are running on the flats or you will end up overstriding. Anytime you don't plant your foot underneath your hip a breaking of momentuum is created - thus slowing you down.

Let me say another thing, stride length will change during races in which runners have insufficient strength-endurance. A guy may run along at 180 strides per minute from start to finish but his stride reduces in length by 4-6 inches in the latter part of the race if his strength-endurance is low. Run on hills, use tempo paces, do circuits etc to improve this.

A simple way of improving running form is by running more. Frequency of running is directly linked to efficiency. If you run more often, you improve your efficiency. You run along using less energy. You extend your stamina. You simply don't get tired like you used to.

It also boils down to taking less days off and building to being able to run 6-7 days a week consistently, ideally 7.

ecoli

seanynova wrote: »

thanks ecoli,

below is a snip of one of tergats posts on stride rate, which might aid in the discussion:

Hills are definitely one way to go as running hills you naturally shorten your stride (one reason alot of coaches always talk of "short snappy strides" when hitting a hill.

Hills and Daniels Reps are used in early stages of training programmes for this reason to develop form efficiency and from here they then progress to the endurance aspect. Form work and aerobic base are the fundamentals on which to build on

RacoonQueen

tunguska wrote: »

I'd like to test the theory out though, I think theres something to it. I've been watching efficient runners in action and they all have high stride rates, very little upper body movement aswell.

Does this not mean changing your mechanics quite a lot though? I'd be an 'efficient' runner in that I have a short, fast stride with very little upper body movement, I don't use my arms much at all. It suits me though and I'm very comfortable like that.

Would you be comfortable to run like that? What are the supposed benefits to changing your running to that extent?

ecoli

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Does this not mean changing your mechanics quite a lot though?

Effectively yes you would have to take a few steps back for atleast 6-8 weeks before you start to adapt and build to see the benefits. In the long term could benefit but it means sub par for current training cycle imo

RacoonQueen

ecoli wrote: »

Effectively yes you would have to take a few steps back for atleast 6-8 weeks before you start to adapt and build to see the benefits. In the long term could benefit but it means sub par for current training cycle imo

Is it really that efficient though? Is there any studies or evidence to say that my running style is 'better' than Tunguska's? I know that it's widely believed to be more efficient but what is this actually based on?

ecoli

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Is it really that efficient though? Is there any studies or evidence to say that my running style is 'better' than Tunguska's? I know that it's widely believed to be more efficient but what is this actually based on?

There are a few studies (I think Daniels and a guy called O Callaghan) again I am not saying that is my opinion but rather I am answering the questions based on the premise that Tunguska has on this rather than giving my own personal opinion.

To me form work (hills and reps) is a more beneficial way to approach this however different horses for different courses

gerard65

From his book Daniels based his theory of the 180 footstrikes per minute as the most efficent from observation of world class runners. I never read any actual studies which back this up.
I've tried the hit the 180 in 10k races but I don't know how you'd do it at a slower training pace.

PaulieC

I use a metronome, or a 180bpm mp3. It's really quite quick to get used to. You will learn to shorten your stride to go slowly and lengthen it to go quicker, all the time maintaining the same stride rate. Search for 180bpm.mp3, you should find loads. I edited one to last 90 minutes , keeps me going without having to put it on repeat. There is also a service that do 180bpm mixes, if you don't like m

PaulieC

Sorry, posted too soon...
Yeah, if you don't like metronomic monotony, at least you can get tunes. Can't think of the name right now, but I'll look it up

PaulieC

Podrunner, search for it. They have 4 60-minute 180 bpm mixes to download

PaulieC

oops, double post, sorry

ss43

ecoli wrote: »

To me form work (hills and reps) is a more beneficial way to approach this however different horses for different courses

What do you do for form work? Have you found it helpful? Any idea why?

Rantan

I spent a bit of time over the summer focussing on trying to improve my stride rate. For a start mostly I found it impossible to keep count..! but when I did I was somewhere in around the 160 - 65 mark. I found when I did maintain a high rate I hit a smoother softer rhythm and ran with a "pitter patter" movement. I found it helps keep me on my forefoot and encourages a stronger push off, this brought on some calf and shin strain, so I wasn;t sure if this was just a result of engaging them more and changing the mechanics of my stride or from poor technique

ecoli

ss43 wrote: »

What do you do for form work? Have you found it helpful? Any idea why?

Most people do some types of form work without realizing it. I personally do drills before most (all track based) sessions as well as short hill sprints and strides. Hills help promote short snappy strides which could be interpreted as a way to address stride rate. Also recently have resumed core work as have neglected it for a while.

In terms of the benefits which are usually associated with form work can be increased efficiency in running which could be analysed through race results or decrease in muscle imbalances which can increase injury risk. I cannot isolate these factors as the sole reason for the outcome however over the last year I have seen improvement in both performance and decrease in injuries as there have been other changes in that time however I do feel they had a contributing factor alright

ss43

ecoli wrote: »

Most people do some types of form work without realizing it. I personally do drills before most (all track based) sessions as well as short hill sprints and strides. Hills help promote short snappy strides which could be interpreted as a way to address stride rate. Also recently have resumed core work as have neglected it for a while.

In terms of the benefits which are usually associated with form work can be increased efficiency in running which could be analysed through race results or decrease in muscle imbalances which can increase injury risk. I cannot isolate these factors as the sole reason for the outcome however over the last year I have seen improvement in both performance and decrease in injuries as there have been other changes in that time however I do feel they had a contributing factor alright

I mean what are doing to improve (change) your form. If you do a stride, unless you change something, it's just going to reinforce the way you've always run (not necessarily a bad thing). What drills do you do, and how do they transfer into better running mechanics?

ecoli

ss43 wrote: »

I mean what are doing to improve (change) your form. If you do a stride, unless you change something, it's just going to reinforce the way you've always run (not necessarily a bad thing). What drills do you do, and how do they transfer into better running mechanics?

Form is not just stride however it is one of the major factors.

In terms of stride improvement this is where hills and drills come into play. Hills force you to shorten your stride and as such you become more efficient increase your stride rate. The drills I do aim to work on fast leg turn over, high knee lift, upright posture as well as stability in movement (to prevent that rocking from side to side you get when you are tired)

With the core again this is developed so that as you tire you aim to prevent some of the forward lean associated with fatigue

I do agree however with what you are saying I am not trying to dramatically change my stride pattern but simply run more efficiently (especially in the latter part of races when fatigue sets in)

Some of the drills that I do include:

high knee lift
kick backs
A skips
B Skips
fast feet
Backwards running
Straight leg bounds

Normally drills are done for about 15-20 min post warm up but before a session

Raighne

I should probably write an article instead of this reply, but indulge me!

In discussions around running technique two arguments usually arise: “I running differently than what I am used to would make me less efficient” and “some ways to run are better than others.” These two stances seem irreconcilable but interestingly both parties are right, to a point.

All human movement can be encoded in one of two memory systems: implicit or explicit. Everyone will be familiar with the difference between these two if they remember back to the day they first picked up a football, learned to dance, first hit a ping-pong ball in table-tennis or first tried to execute a triple salto into the water (ok, so most of us didn’t even get there!). Likely your first movements were very stilted and you found yourself focusing intently on them and unable to concentrate on anything else. This is the phase when a movement resides in your explicit memory.

Many hours of performing the same movement encodes the neural pathways necessary to move this movement into your implicit memory or, in layman’s terms, “automating it”. Experienced tennis coaches will tell you that it takes six months to inculcate the basic forehand topspin movement into a young player’s implicit memory. For the scientists, the movement moves from being activated in the prefrontal cortex to other areas such as the basal ganglia (responsible for touch and feel) during migration from the explicit to implicit memory.

Migrating movement from one system to another has huge advantages: it allows experts at a movement to chunk various complex movements together in one fluent skill (something the explicit memory cannot handle – this is essentially what it feels like to “think about leaning forward, striking foot under body, keep cadence high, relax shoulders, lift feet etc. etc.”). Experiments have been done to replicate the phenomena of “choking” when expert players suddenly act like novices again (professional footballers missing penalties, Greg Norman’s spectacular collapse in the US Masters etc.) it happens because they became too focused and their “consciousness”* interfered with the smooth workings of the implicit system.

In running we trigger a similar effect when we focus on our movement pattern. As long as the movement practiced has not made the transition to implicit memory, it will be less efficient than your explicit running style (what you today think of “as your own”). In running this also makes it dangerous as the body will be tense and stilted rather than fluid and relaxed increasing risk of injury. Either way this is similar to having taught yourself one forehand in table-tennis. When you learn a better technique it will actually be less efficient for quite some time until you spend enough training time removing the old pattern and encoding the better pattern.

Matt Fitzgerald showcases some studies showing exactly this phenoman in runners in “Run by Feel” (essentially studies showed that the more you think of something, the less efficient you do it). He also mentions that most of the efficiencies of running mechanics (apart from overstriding) are fine motor adjustments at a level you cannot control from the conscious brain (so you cannot think your way to it). His conclusion: each runner naturally adopts the running stride most efficient to the totality of his or her biomechanics and body structure. This points us to the obvious solution: to improve efficiency you have to improve body structure and biomechanics. Biomechanics can be maladapted (for instance, my ankles rarely move at all, my right foot delays impact to the ground compared to the left, my hip flexors are too tense, my elastic recoil reflex while jumping does not function correctly and a long list of other major mal-adaptations).

My own coaching approach on this is therefore as follows: to “run better” never think about it but instead work actively on fixing your biomechanical problems (in the forms of the correct drills and resistance/flexibility work), optimising your body type for running (improve lean body mass). I combine this with myoreflex therapy now in an attempt to more quickly remove negative movement patterns that have been stored in implicit memory because of trauma during running (e.g. injury) or maladaptation (running too much injured or while excessively fatigued when form breaks down). Eventually, natural patterns will reassert themselves, be ingrained in your implicit memory and your running economy will improve as a result. For people who are already hyper-focused on their running form (incidentally I am one of them myself after having dabbled with ChiRunning, Evolution Running and barefoot running at different times of the last 4 years) a nice trick to unlearn this habit is to learn to focus on something external in your environment (in races focus on the event, competitors, spectators, tactics or something not to do with your body). This way you can ensure the subconscious system takes over motor control (bring you back on auto-pilot). Takes a bit of practice if you're like me, some have more talent for "zoning out".

* I’m avoiding the easier distinction between simply “conscious” as “subconscious” control as recent scientific evidence has shown this to be a false distinction. The conscious mind merely picks up decisions already made by the subconscious but does not actually control anything on its own but as this is a profound revelation I’d recommend “The Moral Landscape” for anyone interested in reading more on that topic.

RoyMcC

Nicely expained Rene. Mathew Syed in 'Bounce' goes through this theory as well. It does neatly explain 'choking' theory which Syed explored after inexplicably doing just that against a lesser player at the Olympics.

Applied to changes in running technique it would seem to make perfect sense.

Raighne

RoyMcC wrote: »

Nicely expained Rene. Mathew Syed in 'Bounce' goes through this theory as well. It does neatly explain 'choking' theory which Syed explored after inexplicably doing just that against a lesser player at the Olympics.

Applied to changes in running technique it would seem to make perfect sense.

Off-topic, I suppose but I really enjoyed Syed's book as it reminded me of my own experience as a fledgling ten-pin bowler. I came into the game as a fifteen year old, was spotted by accident by the national youth coach and told "lad, tell your folks to bring you out more because you have the talent." As a sixteen year old I won my first (and only as it would prove) tournament playing my own style and using rented equipment against much more experienced opposition, seemingly proving his observation.

Naturally, I began reading books about the proper technique, got the advanced equipment (balls with aggressive spin etc.), was taught the right four-step approach to the line, the geometrical rules of spare play, finger-tip grip and how to curve the ball. I should have soared naturally you would expect.

Two things happened: 1) my play deteriorated although my maximum performance level increased 2) I grew frustrated that it was suddenly not "easy" and after four years of frustration gave up on the sport for good. Taking the lessons from Syed's book, I should have been told that my play would become unstable for quite some time until the new technique was mastered (but we had no coaches). Second, the coaches ill-advised comment let me to believe that talent was the key, not hard work. So when the "talent" failed, what was to be done for it. My natural style of play had been surprisingly effective but could never have taken me beyond a certain level as the technique did not create an aggressive enough strike-rate.

It taught me two things, first that if you want to learn something new don't expect instant results as well. And second that as a coach you should always praise effort and not talent.

ss43

Some stuff I agree with and some I disagree with. Some points/questions:

It's possible to focus on aspects of your form without becoming tense. If you keep to one or two cues and only add extra when the initial cues are absorbed (or implicit if you like). It can definitely be done. It needs to be done in small doses.

Also, efficiency is far from the be all and end all in running. Bekele was found to be 'less efficient' than the other medalists in Osaka. Who would you rather be from that race? What you could lose in efficiency you could gain in power.

I don't see why I can't think about my mechanics when I'm running. Where is my body? Am I straight/leaning forward/leaning backwards? Is my head in a position that compromises what I want from my torso? For example, if your chin is up, it can lead to sticking your chest out which can in turn cause excessive lordosis. It very easy to think 'Is my chin in the right place' without being tense.

It seems the conclusion is do exercises to fix weaknesses and your form will automatically improve. I don't think this will bring about anything more than small changes. If you want exercises to transfer into your running, it has to be a very conscious process. At first, it will feel awkward but it will eventually become implicit.

To use your example. Your elastic reaction with the ground doesn't function properly when you jump. If you jump and jump and jump until it does, it still won't carry into your running if you run with a slow cadence.

Maybe some of the sprinters on here can clarify but I thought that good sprinters are very focused on what they're doing. I've seen a video where Jon Drummond says something along the lines of 'I run with purpose; every step has a reason.' When sprinter talk of 'executing their race' they're not just talking about tactics; are they wasting their time?

It would seem to me that if I don't use my abs when I run, strengthening them will be of very little benefit unless I do something that is going to use that strength when I run.

geekington

I wonder am I the only person who has no idea how many strides I take per minute! I don't use a pedometer while running or do I listen to music so is there any way I can ascertain my stride rate?

Raighne

ss43 wrote: »

Some stuff I agree with and some I disagree with. Some points/questions:

It's possible to focus on aspects of your form without becoming tense. If you keep to one or two cues and only add extra when the initial cues are absorbed (or implicit if you like). It can definitely be done. It needs to be done in small doses.

Also, efficiency is far from the be all and end all in running. Bekele was found to be 'less efficient' than the other medalists in Osaka. Who would you rather be from that race? What you could lose in efficiency you could gain in power.

I don't see why I can't think about my mechanics when I'm running. Where is my body? Am I straight/leaning forward/leaning backwards? Is my head in a position that compromises what I want from my torso? For example, if your chin is up, it can lead to sticking your chest out which can in turn cause excessive lordosis. It very easy to think 'Is my chin in the right place' without being tense.

It seems the conclusion is do exercises to fix weaknesses and your form will automatically improve. I don't think this will bring about anything more than small changes. If you want exercises to transfer into your running, it has to be a very conscious process. At first, it will feel awkward but it will eventually become implicit.

To use your example. Your elastic reaction with the ground doesn't function properly when you jump. If you jump and jump and jump until it does, it still won't carry into your running if you run with a slow cadence.

Maybe some of the sprinters on here can clarify but I thought that good sprinters are very focused on what they're doing. I've seen a video where Jon Drummond says something along the lines of 'I run with purpose; every step has a reason.' When sprinter talk of 'executing their race' they're not just talking about tactics; are they wasting their time?

It would seem to me that if I don't use my abs when I run, strengthening them will be of very little benefit unless I do something that is going to use that strength when I run.

I did not claim you could not think about how you run but simply reported that studies show that doing so makes you less energy efficient. This is consistent with what science knows of human movement being directed by the implicit and explicit memory systems.

That being said, different complexities of movements require different levels of processing power. The issue with the explicit memory system is that it has too little but it may still have enough to allow for very small corrections (it would be almost impossible not to make some kind of conscious correction from time to time in any movement).

As for sprinting, running economy is not as important for sprinters because fuel exhaustion is not the main performance indicator. Fitzgerald highlights another study showing that every runner naturally focuses harder and harder on their form as pace increases. Facing the extreme pain of high speeds and the difficulty of executing such movements, this is to be expected. Yet, I would be quite certain that the major performance movements involved in sprinting have been solidly ingrained in the sprinters implicit memory after years and years of sprinting practice. Anecdotal comments such as the ones presented are hard to quantify in scientific terms and can mean any number of things. Ideally, the explicit memory of a sprinter would be occupied mainly by staying in the right position of the lane, pacing strategy, keeping an eye on competitors and so on.

You are addressing a simplified version of my argument in the fourth paragraph. My elastic recoil while jumping is essential to fix but my point was never that fixing that in isolation will result in better economics (if it was the only issue I had then yes). You have to address the totality of movements that go into running. While not exactly complex, the ideal running form has a number of components, some of which are precursors for each other. As you rightly say a high stride rate is required to take advantage of elastic recoil.

As an example: during my own work with the running expert Antony Riddle in London, he worked both on the jumping problem, on reactivating ankle movement, fixing my Morton's syndrome on both feet and on having me move on a treadmill to a 180bpm metronome. All in all, my girlfriend and I both got a set of about 12 drills which we do every day before commencing a workout as a form of "pre-programming".

We will be synthesizing these drills into an article series on ChampionsEverywhere and plan on bringing Antony Riddle to Ireland for a seminar. From my evaluation so far his method has all of the benefits of ChiRunning, POSE, sprint drills, Evolution Running, barefoot running and Functional Movement Systems without any of the drawbacks. I also found the drills to be the most enjoyable and most easy to motivate myself for of all the systems which is a major plus for compliance.

I wrote about Antony on my Blog in case anyone is interested in his work: http://www.mountain-runner.com/2011/11/diary-two-specialist-all-answerspart-2.html We'll be doing an interview with him shortly. Bear in mind it's a bit emotional as it took me three frustrating years to find man a who provided the answers he gave me.

RayCun

geekington wrote: »

I wonder am I the only person who has no idea how many strides I take per minute! I don't use a pedometer while running or do I listen to music so is there any way I can ascertain my stride rate?

Stopwatch to time 30 seconds or a minute, and count your strides.

geekington

RayCun wrote: »

Stopwatch to time 30 seconds or a minute, and count your strides.

Fair enough! Should have thought of that myself!

meijin

geekington wrote: »

I wonder am I the only person who has no idea how many strides I take per minute! I don't use a pedometer while running or do I listen to music so is there any way I can ascertain my stride rate?

If you have iPhone, you can try iSmoothRun app that can track your cadence, and also has a metronome which you can use to improve it.

Not sure if there is any other easy way to measure it.

meijin

RayCun wrote: »

Stopwatch to time 30 seconds or a minute, and count your strides.

My brain switches off when running, so it would be too much hassle, unless somebody else would count it for me :-)

RacoonQueen

If you have a garmin you can get a footpod which will track your cadence.

T runner

Relative (to the runner) High cadence is explicit at faster paces. If you run a race youre cadence will be higher than or equal to your other training efforts. How do you ingrain a fast cadence into all your training? Always run at paces that require you to have a high cadence currently. The high cadence is already explicit: you just need to do it explicitly all the time.

This is best achieved at the start of a build up.
So a 34 min 10k runner might run all his/her steady runs between 3:30 pace and 4:05-10 pace. Runs are shortened on recovery/regeneration runs.

So a short recovery run at 4:10 pace will require high (relative to the runner) cadence to complete. Run everyday like this everyday and do recovery runs as fast as possible while achieving the objective of recovery.

It will take 4-5 weeks. Then high cadence is explicit for all efforts. You can slow some runs down and youll keep the cadence.

I know because ive done it in the last 2 months. I did a very easy recovery run last night and the cadence remained high...felt natural.

(from teh implicit/explicit angle) I guess instead of trying to put implicit high cadence training at very slow paces into explicit memory. You starve slow explicit running by doing only high cadence explicit running. As your capacity to train at fast cadences increases: running very comfortably with high cadence at easy/recovery paces is now natural. And the paces of these efforts are a lot faster than before indicating improved efficiency at this pace (and all paces).

This high cadence running provides a boost to your efficiency during every single run.

Raighne

I should have added another detail to my last post that would have made the response more useful: a lot of the little corrections that would be natural to try to make to "run better" (such as keeping your head high, lifting your feet off the ground, running with erect posture and so on) are not root causes of any issues in themselves. instead they are symptoms of a breakdown in your kinetic chain somewhere in the hierarchy of movement (sitting, standing, walking, running, sprinting).

To take the head example: most people's head is ever so slightly ahead of their centre of gravity because of the posture we sit in today. The adaptations that happen in your core area to this sitting posture create the slight misalignment of posture showing this effect. So thinking about keeping your head back is a little bit like shooting the messenger: very satisfying but doesn't address the sender (the real root cause).

Cadence falls in an interesting grey area because low cadence is a symptom of multiple issues. T_Runner has already described a way to entrain faster cadence into your body (Lydiard similarly sought to do this with the downhill part of his famous Hill Circuit). Overstriding from heel-striking would be another maladaptation that would make a faster cadence more difficult to achieve. Lack of elasticity and tension in the wrong muscles likewise can lead to your ground-contact time increasing thus potentially lowering your natural stride rate.

You would definitely want to have a thorough assessment done of your full biomechanics as your baseline and then work from there. A combination of drills and short training runs targetted only at practicing a certain cue could work in such circumstances. Like with any new skill the runner would then have to accept that both speed and volume of these runs would have to be much lower for these runs.

As a word of warning, though, if you have certain biomechanical issues that are not addressed before attempting some kind of mechanical breakdown will very likely follow. I attribute the anecdotal evidence given by my physiotherapist John Murphy of the Carysfort Clinic to this effect: he sees a lot of ChiRunners in his practice who have exchanged their knee injuries for posterior tendon injuries. This is because attempting a forefoot strike and forward lean invariably shifts the load onto the posterior tendons and calf muscles.

Similarly, my first attempt at moving to minimalist shoes in 2009 backfired because wearing narrow shoes in childhood has caused me to develop Morton's Syndrome (something most modern runners likely have to some extent) meaning my second metatarsal takes over the functions of the first metatarsal. Unfortunately, the second metatarsal is not very good at this job and metatarsal inflammation invariably followed. I train a runner who grew up in Africa and his feet are nothing like mine, the first metatarsal is in its proper position and his feet have better padding and musculature overall. So you need to first bring the body to a healthy baseline before adjusting it to a different running style.

ss43

How long were the studies undertaken for. Do they allow two years for example to get back to previous or higher efficiency?

Yes, ideally we could all run perfectly without focusing on it, but in practice I think that only happens on very rare occasions. I would be of the opinion, that when sprinters (or distance runners) get caught up in trying to run fast and forget the points they have to focus on. John Smith gives his athletes points to focus on so they don't lose out by concentrating on things like the crowd or their competitors.

While anecdotal comments are hard to quantify, they can be more valuable as science rarely studies the best examples we have of running.

It seemed to me that you were suggesting that fixing all the problems in isolation would bring about a significant improvement in running. I don't think they would transfer that simply. I think you need to work on them in isolation and then on transferring the new/improved skills into your running.

After the drills do you just turn off your brain and let them carry through and does that work. That's the bit I don't get. Running is such an ingrained movement for us I can't see it taking anything but a huge amount of focus to change.

RoyMcC

ss43 wrote: »

It seemed to me that you were suggesting that fixing all the problems in isolation would bring about a significant improvement in running. I don't think they would transfer that simply. I think you need to work on them in isolation and then on transferring the new/improved skills into your running.

After the drills do you just turn off your brain and let them carry through and does that work. That's the bit I don't get. Running is such an ingrained movement for us I can't see it taking anything but a huge amount of focus to change.

I'm far from an expert but this is pretty much how it works with track athletes. Pretty much every session is (or should) be preceded by a series of isolation drills. The theory is that the movements are then carried through into running and racing.

One way you might help the process along is by ending each drill by breaking into a 30 metre run whilst the drill is in muscle memory.

It's much easier with young athletes who have yet to find an ingrained method of running. With few exceptions a young athlete will rapidly improve with proper drills. (Sloppy drills annoy me - a waste of time and too often not corrected by coaches).

Raighne

ss43 wrote: »

How long were the studies undertaken for. Do they allow two years for example to get back to previous or higher efficiency?

I do not think any longitudinal studies were performed no and I am sure they would have shown greater efficiency as time went on (I'd expect that for any movement practiced purposefully over a significant period of time). The coaches and athletes concern here would be, of course, whether they can afford the lower performance in that period and the potentially higher risk of injury (at least if same volume is sustained.

ss43 wrote: »

Yes, ideally we could all run perfectly without focusing on it, but in practice I think that only happens on very rare occasions. I would be of the opinion, that when sprinters (or distance runners) get caught up in trying to run fast and forget the points they have to focus on. John Smith gives his athletes points to focus on so they don't lose out by concentrating on things like the crowd or their competitors.

The question on what to concentrate on is an interesting one because it is very individual what will cause athletes to "choke". My guess is that world class sprinters can execute the majority of complex motor movement subconsciously but may make minor, low processing, adjustments either because they find that essential to the performance or because that focus helps them. I give my athletes the opposite focus, when high intensity pain strikes, I ask them to focus on something external, such as competitors. But you have to experiment here a bit as different foci works for different people. No doubt about that.

ss43 wrote: »

While anecdotal comments are hard to quantify, they can be more valuable as science rarely studies the best examples we have of running.

I agree and disagree. Science generally plays catch-up with what works in running (such as in the case of the Lydiard system which was eventually verified long after its success was proven). Stand-alone comments do not necessarily because the athlete can mean any number of things with the words he is using. One world class sprinter saying "I focus on form while racing" is interesting but we need to examine it a bit further like what does he mean when he says "focus". MacMillan suggests the easiest cue to improve people's form is to have them imagine running tall. (article link at the end). Is it something as simple as this, or is it something as complex as required by many modern running technique system (forward lean, land foot under centre of gravity). The point is that certain movements such as placing your foot under you centre of gravity result from numerous variables that require more processing power to execute than the explicit memory can handle. Thus the result is usually similar to choking: a breakdown of mechanics instead.

I like the three verbal cues: fast, relaxed, tall and use them in every warm-up I do with runners. But these are not complex foci and I consider them quite different, so would just be curious about what the sprinters here are really talking about.

ss43 wrote: »

It seemed to me that you were suggesting that fixing all the problems in isolation would bring about a significant improvement in running. I don't think they would transfer that simply. I think you need to work on them in isolation and then on transferring the new/improved skills into your running.

I can see how it can be read like that. Functional movements, stretching and strength training have largely failed to address the injury situation because they are quite often not specific to the running mechanic. Antony works by having you perform only drills that are essential components of running. He discourages the use of any non-natural movements such as isolated strength exercises which entrain artificial movement patterns into the body that conflict with the natural running movement (these exercises also tend to be strength only at the centre of the muscles, rather than at the edges were it attaches to the tendons which is a huge problem for injury-resistance).

After the drills do you just turn off your brain and let them carry through and does that work. That's the bit I don't get. Running is such an ingrained movement for us I can't see it taking anything but a huge amount of focus to change.

I “try” to turn off my brain. It is not easy for me as my life has conditioned me to overthink movements rather than underthink it, unfortunately. Antony essentially advises that doing the drills is like clicking a “reset” button (we noticed this, after just a few corrections, he showed us how our standing posture, squatting, jumping and running on treadmill visibly improved). After this he explained we have a 72 hours window before old patterns reassert themselves. He also set the expectancy that six weeks of daily drills before each run would be enough to bring about the necessary change in movement pattern although I am sure there will be individual variations in this. I have observed another example of this principle in action: I could never throw an American football. Then I did a period of core synergistic workouts and suddenly, during a wedding (don’t ask!), I found myself throwing an American football. Within two throws a new movement pattern suddenly activated and I began to throw and catch the ball with great precision because my core took control of the movement. Previously, while throwing, my core had never asserted itself, only shoulders and arms had done the work.
Overall, our difference in perception stems from differing vantage points I think: I consider the running motion a product rather than a trigger. That means motion is simply a product of the mechanics that generate it. This again rests on the assumption that the brain selects the most effective mode of movement for the biomechanical chain it has to work with. So if you correct the mechanics It is a bit like a bad golf-swing. Your swing might be great but your posture is leaning backwards and interferes with the execution. I essentially just aim to fix the postural problem. You could say “but what if the swing is wrong” and here the metaphor breaks down. But I have not yet encountered a single problem with the running gait that could not be fixed by addressing the biomechanical problem. Once you do this, the brain seems to assert the most efficient running pattern simply if you run a lot (if you challenge the system through long and fast running, the brain will naturally seek the most efficient way of completing it). And here there will be differences because body types are different.

BeepBeep67

Coincidentally an email from McMillan training today:

Think Tall for Good Running Form

The Simplest, Most Effective Running Form Cue
by Greg McMillan, M.S.

I was lucky to run at a high school where the coach and the upperclassmen focused on proper running form. It was something we worked on frequently. As a result, nearly every runner leaving the program had very good form. Notice that I didn't say "the same form." We all had differences in our body structure and function, so we had variations in our form. We all, however, looked good running.

The first lesson that our coach taught us was to "run tall." It's the easiest cue to use for runners and will clear up most form issues. It's a simple idea that when consistently implemented results in significant improvements in running form.

Here's the idea: Your head should be balanced over your shoulders. Your shoulders should be balanced over your hips, and your hips should be balanced over your legs. No slouching your shoulders (a common problem since most of us are hunched over a computer all day). No head in front of your body (more thanks to the computer). No butt sticking out. Since I've coached high-schoolers up to senior citizens, I know that just by telling them to run tall, their running technique improves greatly no matter how experienced of a runner they are.

We can debate footwear (from "normal" shoes to minimal shoes and even to bare feet), foot plant (heel strike, midfoot strike and toe strike) as well as any of the other biomechanical theories/opinions that are gaining popularity. But if you focus just on running tall, you'll run better. You'll have better technique. You'll create less stress on your body. And you'll counteract the gradual return to a hunched-over caveman that our everyday lives encourage.

Your task, then, isn't to spend hours reading opinions on running form and footwear. Your task is just to think about running tall over the next week. This doesn't mean running stiff. It means simply holding your body in a relaxed yet balanced position. Once you achieve this relaxed, balanced position with your body, then the rest of good form is pretty easy to correct.

More on Form

I'm indifferent when it comes to all of the hullabaloo about running form and footwear. I see successful runners with all types of running form and types of foot plant. While I think we should all work to gain or maintain good running form, my opinion on running form and foot plant is that the most important running form/foot plant for you is the one that keeps you healthy. I was a mid-foot striker (often considered to be a more "correct" foot strike) but was hurt all the time. Now I'm a heel-striker and am healthy. Many people are the opposite. It doesn't matter as long as you stay healthy. A healthy runner can train more consistently over time, which is a key to realizing your potential. Running tall encourages the foot to land more under the body (instead of in front of the body) no matter which part of the foot is touching down first.

The second consideration is that your best running form/foot plant should make you efficient. Since most of us run races of 5K to the marathon, efficiency (running economy) is more important than pure speed. We need to be able to run as economically as possible.

The third consideration is that your best running form/foot plant should make you fast. While I've heard far too many bio-mechanists try to get distance runners to run like sprinters, we know that running this way is too energy costly, which is why efficiency is ranked second in this list. But we all like to sprint at the end, and good running form and foot plant should allow us to do this. Having powerful technique can also help us avoid injury because of the way our bodies recruit muscles when running in our most powerful position.

A few years ago-since my form was changing anyway-I developed two running styles. One is my heel-strike, super-efficient form that keeps me healthy and racing economically. The other is my up-on-my-forefoot sprint technique. Having both techniques in my arsenal means I can stay healthy and run efficiently, but I can also sprint when necessary. Learn to run tall first, then experiment to find your best technique for whatever type of running you do.

Watch Yourself

In high school, we watched ourselves run past store windows, car windows or any other reflective surface we ran by. This visual feedback will help you find and perfect your best running form. Take a peek the next time you have the opportunity.

Woddle

Never heard of this guy Hadd till a few weeks back and now I'm all over letsrun trying to find all his little nuggets.

About stride length. This is such a personal thing and not really something you should play around with. Most people's bodies are smart enough to figure out the most economical stride length. All you need is enough mileage and your body's innate instinct will find the optimal stride for you. I have altered the stride lengths of those with unnaturally long strides. Also middle-distance runners spend some time working on their stride mechanics. For a distance guy, just go long and let your body figure it out. Don't go round counting strides per minute. Do some training in the hills and that will help to make sure you have good strong legs.

(Just as an aside, some research was done on this in the lab and they found that most people require MORE OXYGEN (ie: perform badly) if you tell them to run with a longer OR a shorter stride than the one they are used to. So accept this is your stride. It might change naturally as you run more miles, but don't fool with it).

meijin

some info about cadence and how to improve it at http://fellrnr.com/wiki/Cadence
see also linked "Arm Positon" and "Cadence Q and A"

geekington

Right, so I was quite skeptical of the above and decided to give it a go this weekend and really concentrate on form and cadence on an 8 mile run. I wanted to take it handy enough but not pedestrain but in the end it was the best run I've had in the past few months! (Typical it was in training with no-one watching!)

Anyway - I am now a convert!

I haven't flowed our felt as strong in a long time and I could feel that my momentum was helping me and without even trying my pace was quick and consistent!

When I started to tire towards the end, I just concentrated on my cadence and stride length and was able to keep my pace very well when before it would have fallen away!

Thank you to all who have posted and taken the time to share!

I felt very relaxed and

tunguska

geekington wrote: »

Right, so I was quite skeptical of the above and decided to give it a go this weekend and really concentrate on form and cadence on an 8 mile run. I wanted to take it handy enough but not pedestrain but in the end it was the best run I've had in the past few months! (Typical it was in training with no-one watching!)

Anyway - I am now a convert!

I haven't flowed our felt as strong in a long time and I could feel that my momentum was helping me and without even trying my pace was quick and consistent!

When I started to tire towards the end, I just concentrated on my cadence and stride length and was able to keep my pace very well when before it would have fallen away!

Thank you to all who have posted and taken the time to share!

I felt very relaxed and

Ditto. First run since the marathon and I consciously made an effort to hit 180 foot strikes per minute. Was gliding along. Also was constantly adjusting to keep torso steady and eliminate lateral movement. Be a while before Im able to race like this but I reckon it'll happen bit by bit.

Woddle

tunguska wrote: »

Ditto. First run since the marathon and I consciously made an effort to hit 180 foot strikes per minute. Was gliding along. Also was constantly adjusting to keep torso steady and eliminate lateral movement. Be a while before Im able to race like this but I reckon it'll happen bit by bit.

Just curious Tunguska
Did you keep at it and if so would you count it as one of the reasons to why you're running faster now?

I've been messing around with it the last two weeks and it's starting to feel more normal now. When I first tried it, I couldn't slow down but I've got that sorted now. Without fail I hit 180 every time (used to be 160) apart from when I speed up. Today running at 5:30 pace only for a minute at a go mind I was clocking 204.
My legs also feel great after the runs aswell and I feel like I can keep going and want to keep going.