Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Short or long steps when running?

Options
  • 06-08-2014 9:22am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭


    Hi,

    I have been running casually for years (no more than 5k) to supplement Astro soccer and gym work and I've always had a long gait - I am 6 foot and take long strides when jogging. I was recently jogging with my sister who takes small steps and appeared to be doing a lot more work than I was, so I was suggesting that she take longer strides.

    I was under the assumption that because I was taking longer strides and getting further, with less effort, than she was, that this was the correct way to run.

    However, I read an article at the weekend by Catriona McKieran (the Irish cross-country runner) who suggested that runners should aim to step 90 times per minute (or 180 times when counting both feet). Her theory was that smaller and more frequent steps stopped the build-up of lactic acid and also meant that the joints were not pounding the ground from higher up thus reducing injury.

    I timed my steps on Monday and I was only doing around 70 steps per minute (or 140 when counting both feet). I tried to change and increase my steps and found I got tired quickly - although I did manage to increase my steps to around 160 by the end of my jog.

    Should I stick to my longer gait and less steps or try to change as suggested by an expert runner who would have received professional advice when she was training?
    Tagged:


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 646 ✭✭✭inigo


    I'm far from being an expert but I'd recommend shorter, more frequent steps (=higher cadence). With a longer stride you risk overstriding, which apparently increases the risk of injury. Stand tall, then try and let yourself fall forward from the ankles (not the waist) as if you were a plank. Then, as you fall, start running by placing your feet under your hips (one at a time ;)) and let gravity do the hard work.

    Higher cadence means several things like less time touching the ground, more efficiency and so on, all related. A lot of people, me included, feel higher cadence helps keep better form too. If you feel you get tired more quickly, take even shorter steps.

    BTW, I did C McKiernan's workshop, which is based on Chi Running if you want to google it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭viperlogic


    Everyone is different, I'm 6'1 and have a cadence of ~160 whereas my GF has a cadence of ~190. My cadence remains around the same for most paces bar sprint. It's my strides that increases with pace from ~1m to ~1.6m.

    Excellent article here

    http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2011/02/180-isnt-magic-number-stride-rate-and.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭hadoken13


    inigo wrote: »
    I'm far from being an expert but I'd recommend shorter, more frequent steps (=higher cadence). With a longer stride you risk overstriding, which apparently increases the risk of injury. Stand tall, then try and let yourself fall forward from the ankles (not the waist) as if you were a plank. Then, as you fall, start running by placing your feet under your hips (one at a time ;)) and let gravity do the hard work.

    Higher cadence means several things like less time touching the ground, more efficiency and so on, all related. A lot of people, me included, feel higher cadence helps keep better form too. If you feel you get tired more quickly, take even shorter steps.

    BTW, I did C McKiernan's workshop, which is based on Chi Running if you want to google it.

    I get tired quicker with shorter strides. The article below suggests quicker strides but also lengthening the strides too.
    viperlogic wrote: »
    Everyone is different, I'm 6'1 and have a cadence of ~160 whereas my GF has a cadence of ~190. My cadence remains around the same for most paces bar sprint. It's my strides that increases with pace from ~1m to ~1.6m.

    Excellent article here

    http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2011/02/180-isnt-magic-number-stride-rate-and.html

    That's a really good read.

    Where we go wrong is in the logic that the stride rate increase is the key. No, it’s not. It’s the elimination of the overstriding. Using the cue to increase stride rate is a way for coaches/runners to reduce the heel striking overstride.

    It’s simply one of two ways in which we pick up speed. It’s simple really, turn over faster or lengthen the stride, or some combination of both. Don’t limit yourself to only one of those options artificially.


Advertisement