Stride length should not be increased by reaching your foot forward. That only moves your foot plant point in front of your center of gravity and causes a braking action, slows you down and adds to injury-causing stresses. The desired ways to increase stride length are to increase the time your foot is planted on the ground, thus delaying the push-off point, and a stronger push-off, which will increase forward momentum. I believe there are four primary ways to do this. One is to increase leg strength, which Norman suggested and you have explained probably isn't what's holding you back. The other three ways are through improving running form, speed work and stretching.
Running form - The key here is to keep your center of gravity forward, especially your hips. Make sure you are erect when running with no forward bend at the waist. Your eyes should be looking straight ahead and not at the road 20 feet, or less, in front of you. Visualize your hips leading your body down the road. This keeps your feet under and behind you, where you want them for maximum running efficiency and stride length. If you currently have poor running form, this factor alone can make an "instant" improvement of several sec/mile.
Speed work - Speed work increases both stride rate and length. After all, that's the way we get faster. If you don't do speed work now, it will help.
Stretching - I think the most overlooked part of "training" is stretching. Not only does it help to avoid injuries, which all of us know, but it can make you faster by enabling a longer stride length. The longer your foot remains in contact with the ground before toe-off, the longer your stride length. In turn, the maximum angle that your ankle and hip can achieve in a stride limit how long your foot can remain on the ground. These maximum angles are largely determined by the flexibility of your leg muscles, ankles and hip flexors. Stretching will increase the flexibility of all of these, enable an extended foot contact and result in a later push-off more from your toes than the ball of your foot. Thus, a longer stride length. Most of us have more room to progress in this area than in any other affecting stride length.
Increasing ankle flexibility, which I think is the primary stride length limiting factor for most of us, requires that calves and achilles tendons be as pliable as we can make them. Running tightens and shortens them.....exactly the opposite of what we need. I think they are among the most important areas for a runner to stretch to counteract the natural effects of running. Yet, they are probably the area that most of us pay the least attention to.
It sounds like you have access to a gym. If it has a "toe raise" machine, it's also great for stretching calf and achilles tendons. Just load on the weight and "hang by your toes" for 30 seconds. Repeat several times. Do this 2-3 times per week and I think you will quickly see a difference in your stride length.
Jim2
Friday, November 13, 1998
Friday, September 4, 1998
A Personal Stride-Rate Test
There has been a lot of discussion on the Forums in recent weeks, especially Beginners, Competition and Training, about stride rate. A consensus seems to be forming that a minimum of 180 steps per minute is "best" or "optimum", even if it means deliberately shortening one's stride. Several "experts", especially Jack Daniels, have been quoted as recommending this rate as a target to shoot for. Some have taken that to mean that it's what all runners should try to do under all conditions. Although, I have been unable to find a single expert, other than Daniels, who advocates 180 steps/minute as either ideal or minimum for all runners. Most do agree that it's a realistic goal that most all runners should be reasonably close to. With this in mind, I decided to conduct a personal stride rate test to determine the rate that is most efficient for me at a couple of different paces.
Three weeks ago, I measured my max heart rate (HR) at 163 using JD's treadmill test. According to my most recent race results, my VDOT under JD's guidelines is 36 (yeah, I know, I'm slow), which makes my E (easy) pace 10:40/mile at a HR of 122 (75% of max HR) and my T (threshold) pace 8:55/mile at a HR of 147 (90% of max HR).
I had a one-hour upper and lower body weight workout followed by a threshold run (cruise intervals) planned for yesterday. I did the run on a treadmill at my health club, which has a heart rate measurement feature, so that paces and "terrain" would be precisely controlled. Thus, the only variables were stride length and cadence. I ran 10.6 miles as follows: 2 mile w/u at 10:30 pace (slightly faster than E pace), 2x1 mile at 8:57 (slightly slower than T pace) pace, 1x1 mile at 8:48 (slightly faster than T pace), another 2x1 mile at 8:57, another 1x1 mile at 8:48, 2 mile c/d at 10:30. I used 90 second recoveries at 10:30 pace between intervals. I changed my stride rate up and down many times during all segments of the run. For each "test", I counted my stride rate for one minute, then measured my heart rate while continuing to run at the same rate, which took about 15 seconds. Then, I alternated changing my rate up and down as I repeated the test continuously during the run.
During the 2 mile w/u, I started with .8 mile to allow my HR to rise to a stable level. I then tested my HR while varying my cadence (up and down) between 172 and 184 for the remaining 1.2 miles. I performed 8 tests during this period. The results were consistent. With a cadence of 176, my HR was steady at 127. A cadence of 180 and above resulted in a HR of 131-133. Once, I tried a cadence of 172 and my HR measured 129. The 176 cadence was most efficient for my w/u.
During each mile interval, I performed 6 "tests" at cadences ranging from 176 to 184 for a total of 36 tests. The results were interesting. In the first four intervals, a cadence of 176-178 consistently produced a HR of 147 and a cadence of 180-184 drove it up to 150-151. However, in the last two intervals, my HR remained at 151 regardless of cadence. Was it the result of an accumulation of stress after having run over 6 miles at that point? I'll have to explore that one further on another day. During the 90 sec recovery periods at E pace, my HR settled back into the low-to-mid 130's.
Another interesting thing happened during my 2 mile c/d. My lowest HR's occurred at cadences LOWER than during my w/u. My HR was 137 at cadences of 168-172. A cadence of 176 kicked it up to 138-139. And cadences of 180-182 drove it to 141. I can only attribute the decrease in most efficient cadence to one factor. During my w/u, my muscles were "tight" following an hour of weight training. After the intervals and 8.6 miles of running, they were "looser" and more pliable, which enabled a longer, more efficient stride length, thus a slower turnover rate to produce the same 10:30 pace. Also, I'm not surprised that my HR didn't drop back to what it was during the w/u (127-133), even though the pace was the same, considering the cumulative effect of over 8 miles of running.
I think I can conclude several things from this test:
1) 180 steps/minute is not optimum for me at my current level of conditioning, at least at paces of T training and below. Maybe 180 or higher will become optimum for me when I'm better conditioned and faster.....maybe not. Time will tell. Currently, 176 seems to be about my most economical turnover rate, except for cool downs following a hard workout when 170 is best......and that's LOWER, not HIGHER, than all other tested conditions!
2) What "feels" best, probably is. BrianW has said before that he doesn't need a HR monitor to tell him when he is running most efficiently. His body knows. I agree with him. During my test, what the HR monitor told me was most economical was also what felt best to me. It's the way I've run for 16 years and 21,086 miles. Today was the first time I've used a HR measurement....and it just confirmed what I already knew.
3) Each of us has to find what works best for him/her. This is as true for stride rate and length as it is for shoe selection. The most economical combination of stride rate and length for one person isn't necessarily best for another.....or for anyone else, for that matter. If 180 works best for you, fine. But, if 170, 176, 185, 190 or any other number feels best, use it.....as long as you aren't overstriding. (See no. 5 below.) If a person consciously changes his/her cadence dramatically, like from 160 to 180, and feels better, then s/he simply wasn't running economically to begin with. And 180 still might not be best. Maybe something a little higher or lower is. The point is to experiment. Change both ways. But, don't look for a wide variation. We should probably all find our most efficient point to be within 10 or so of 180, regardless of pace. During my test, my pace varied 16%, but my optimum stride rate varied less than 4% (170-176) and the faster the pace, the faster the most economical cadence.....but never was it 180. Although it might be at 180 or above at race pace.
4) I believe that, whatever cadence is best for a particular runner at race pace, forcing that rate for all running at slower paces, especially E (easy) pace, trains one to become a short-strider. Just as we have a "natural" stride rate, we also have a "natural" stride length which is most economical for a given running pace. What's "natural" for us in both cases can be optimized. But, both are best developed through speed and strength training, rather than forced measures. Stride length has a greater influence on running economy (amount of oxygen consumption while running) than stride rate. Therefore, stride length should be optimized for a given pace, which in turn determines cadence, not the other way around.
5) The exception to no. 4 above is in the case of overstriding. We all know that's bad and should be corrected by forcing a shorter stride and faster cadence for a given pace. I think this might be the runner that JD was largely referring to when he said that beginners can often increase economy by increasing cadence.
6) Finally, as all of the "experts" tell us, there is a greater range of variation in optimum stride length than stride rate between runners of all abilities. This simply tells me that the primary focus of most of us who want to improve should be on increasing stride length without inducing overstriding, which means weight training, hill work, speed work and stretching. (The things we all love, right? :)) Stride rate will take care of itself as we become more experienced, stronger and faster runners.
Now, I will admit that I'm an old man. I'm sure my age is a factor in my personal test results. But, that is precisely my point. We all have our own unique factors that determine what is optimum for us. Be it age, weight, percentage of fast twitch fibers, experience in running, whatever. We don't all fit into the same shoebox.
BTW, I was surprised at how easy my test session was. A total of 10.6 miles with 6x1 mile at T pace with 90 sec recoveries and I wasn't completely spent at the end. I'm looking forward to the races this fall. :)
Jim2
Three weeks ago, I measured my max heart rate (HR) at 163 using JD's treadmill test. According to my most recent race results, my VDOT under JD's guidelines is 36 (yeah, I know, I'm slow), which makes my E (easy) pace 10:40/mile at a HR of 122 (75% of max HR) and my T (threshold) pace 8:55/mile at a HR of 147 (90% of max HR).
I had a one-hour upper and lower body weight workout followed by a threshold run (cruise intervals) planned for yesterday. I did the run on a treadmill at my health club, which has a heart rate measurement feature, so that paces and "terrain" would be precisely controlled. Thus, the only variables were stride length and cadence. I ran 10.6 miles as follows: 2 mile w/u at 10:30 pace (slightly faster than E pace), 2x1 mile at 8:57 (slightly slower than T pace) pace, 1x1 mile at 8:48 (slightly faster than T pace), another 2x1 mile at 8:57, another 1x1 mile at 8:48, 2 mile c/d at 10:30. I used 90 second recoveries at 10:30 pace between intervals. I changed my stride rate up and down many times during all segments of the run. For each "test", I counted my stride rate for one minute, then measured my heart rate while continuing to run at the same rate, which took about 15 seconds. Then, I alternated changing my rate up and down as I repeated the test continuously during the run.
During the 2 mile w/u, I started with .8 mile to allow my HR to rise to a stable level. I then tested my HR while varying my cadence (up and down) between 172 and 184 for the remaining 1.2 miles. I performed 8 tests during this period. The results were consistent. With a cadence of 176, my HR was steady at 127. A cadence of 180 and above resulted in a HR of 131-133. Once, I tried a cadence of 172 and my HR measured 129. The 176 cadence was most efficient for my w/u.
During each mile interval, I performed 6 "tests" at cadences ranging from 176 to 184 for a total of 36 tests. The results were interesting. In the first four intervals, a cadence of 176-178 consistently produced a HR of 147 and a cadence of 180-184 drove it up to 150-151. However, in the last two intervals, my HR remained at 151 regardless of cadence. Was it the result of an accumulation of stress after having run over 6 miles at that point? I'll have to explore that one further on another day. During the 90 sec recovery periods at E pace, my HR settled back into the low-to-mid 130's.
Another interesting thing happened during my 2 mile c/d. My lowest HR's occurred at cadences LOWER than during my w/u. My HR was 137 at cadences of 168-172. A cadence of 176 kicked it up to 138-139. And cadences of 180-182 drove it to 141. I can only attribute the decrease in most efficient cadence to one factor. During my w/u, my muscles were "tight" following an hour of weight training. After the intervals and 8.6 miles of running, they were "looser" and more pliable, which enabled a longer, more efficient stride length, thus a slower turnover rate to produce the same 10:30 pace. Also, I'm not surprised that my HR didn't drop back to what it was during the w/u (127-133), even though the pace was the same, considering the cumulative effect of over 8 miles of running.
I think I can conclude several things from this test:
1) 180 steps/minute is not optimum for me at my current level of conditioning, at least at paces of T training and below. Maybe 180 or higher will become optimum for me when I'm better conditioned and faster.....maybe not. Time will tell. Currently, 176 seems to be about my most economical turnover rate, except for cool downs following a hard workout when 170 is best......and that's LOWER, not HIGHER, than all other tested conditions!
2) What "feels" best, probably is. BrianW has said before that he doesn't need a HR monitor to tell him when he is running most efficiently. His body knows. I agree with him. During my test, what the HR monitor told me was most economical was also what felt best to me. It's the way I've run for 16 years and 21,086 miles. Today was the first time I've used a HR measurement....and it just confirmed what I already knew.
3) Each of us has to find what works best for him/her. This is as true for stride rate and length as it is for shoe selection. The most economical combination of stride rate and length for one person isn't necessarily best for another.....or for anyone else, for that matter. If 180 works best for you, fine. But, if 170, 176, 185, 190 or any other number feels best, use it.....as long as you aren't overstriding. (See no. 5 below.) If a person consciously changes his/her cadence dramatically, like from 160 to 180, and feels better, then s/he simply wasn't running economically to begin with. And 180 still might not be best. Maybe something a little higher or lower is. The point is to experiment. Change both ways. But, don't look for a wide variation. We should probably all find our most efficient point to be within 10 or so of 180, regardless of pace. During my test, my pace varied 16%, but my optimum stride rate varied less than 4% (170-176) and the faster the pace, the faster the most economical cadence.....but never was it 180. Although it might be at 180 or above at race pace.
4) I believe that, whatever cadence is best for a particular runner at race pace, forcing that rate for all running at slower paces, especially E (easy) pace, trains one to become a short-strider. Just as we have a "natural" stride rate, we also have a "natural" stride length which is most economical for a given running pace. What's "natural" for us in both cases can be optimized. But, both are best developed through speed and strength training, rather than forced measures. Stride length has a greater influence on running economy (amount of oxygen consumption while running) than stride rate. Therefore, stride length should be optimized for a given pace, which in turn determines cadence, not the other way around.
5) The exception to no. 4 above is in the case of overstriding. We all know that's bad and should be corrected by forcing a shorter stride and faster cadence for a given pace. I think this might be the runner that JD was largely referring to when he said that beginners can often increase economy by increasing cadence.
6) Finally, as all of the "experts" tell us, there is a greater range of variation in optimum stride length than stride rate between runners of all abilities. This simply tells me that the primary focus of most of us who want to improve should be on increasing stride length without inducing overstriding, which means weight training, hill work, speed work and stretching. (The things we all love, right? :)) Stride rate will take care of itself as we become more experienced, stronger and faster runners.
Now, I will admit that I'm an old man. I'm sure my age is a factor in my personal test results. But, that is precisely my point. We all have our own unique factors that determine what is optimum for us. Be it age, weight, percentage of fast twitch fibers, experience in running, whatever. We don't all fit into the same shoebox.
BTW, I was surprised at how easy my test session was. A total of 10.6 miles with 6x1 mile at T pace with 90 sec recoveries and I wasn't completely spent at the end. I'm looking forward to the races this fall. :)
Jim2
Thursday, July 23, 1998
Weight Training
I do weight training 2-3 times per week. I use machines exclusively. Two reasons. One, I find them to be convenient and easy to use. Two, I started weight training very late in life and was intimidated by most of the free weight guys....mostly hunky iron pumpers while I'm a scrawny guy. A cardiologist, who I was seeing for the first time a few years ago, walked into the room where I was sitting without a shirt on and promptly declared in a loud voice "You are PUNY!!" He's right.....at least above the waist. But, I'll match my legs with almost anyone. :-)
Back to weight training. My routine, done on machines at a fitness center rather than free weights, includes 4 sets of 12 repetitions each on leg extension, leg curl, abductor, adductor and calf raise machines, plus 6 sets of 12 reps each of leg presses. My upper body work consists of 2 sets of 12 reps each on 6 different upper body machines that work all the major muscle groups in my chest, back, arms and shoulders. My complete routine takes about an hour and I do it twice per week. Then, I do my running for that day on the treadmill while I'm still warm from the weight workout.
The exception to this is on my long run day when I run in the morning and, sometimes, do a weight workout in the afternoon. It would be my third weight session for the week and I abbreviate it to 30-45 minutes.
I certainly see nothing wrong with using either free weights, machines, or home made methodologies, such as using common household items as weights. Even doing weight bearing exercises without weights, such as pushups, pull-ups, squats, etc, will help. Just whatever you are more comfortable with. Weight training in any form will only help your running. It makes anyone a stronger runner.....better able to sustain both pace and distance. Leg weight work also promotes faster paces since it develops and strengthens fast twitch fibers, along with slow twitch fibers, which are essential to sustaining a faster stride rate over a longer distance.
For maximum running benefit, weight work should not be bulk-building, which translates to extra weight than one must haul around. This is especially important for guys, who are more susceptible to bulking than gals. Optimum weight training for runners utilizes lower weights and higher reps than body building weight work. Machoism and "testosterone flexing" is out of place for the runner in the weight room.
Some say that weight work for runners is only necessary for the upper body and that running itself takes care of all of the lower body's development needs. I disagree. I know how much stronger my legs are when I do regular weight work. And that helps me to sustain a faster pace longer, push my way up hills easier and power my way through faster finishing kicks. Weight training works and develops leg muscles differently than running does.
Weight training also strengthens leg muscles and tendons which are used minimally in the "forward only" motion of running. Particularly those involved in lateral motion, which running doesn't involve, and lifting, which isn't a factor in running except when running uphill or downhill. Why is this important to runners? Simple.....injury prevention.
Injury prevention is, arguably, the most valuable benefit of weight training to runners. Most running injuries occur from over stressing a particular muscle or tendon.....often either the too much, too soon, the overload syndrome or a sudden unexpected movement. Weight training will push back the threshold of each. I think that weight training is especially important for injury prevention to the runner who incorporates speed work and/or very long runs into his/her program. This is when the stresses of running increases significantly. However, it will benefit runners of all levels.
I consider upper body work to be secondary, but still important, to a runner. A strengthened upper body helps you to maintain form, thus running efficiency, in the late stages of a long race.
Jim2
Back to weight training. My routine, done on machines at a fitness center rather than free weights, includes 4 sets of 12 repetitions each on leg extension, leg curl, abductor, adductor and calf raise machines, plus 6 sets of 12 reps each of leg presses. My upper body work consists of 2 sets of 12 reps each on 6 different upper body machines that work all the major muscle groups in my chest, back, arms and shoulders. My complete routine takes about an hour and I do it twice per week. Then, I do my running for that day on the treadmill while I'm still warm from the weight workout.
The exception to this is on my long run day when I run in the morning and, sometimes, do a weight workout in the afternoon. It would be my third weight session for the week and I abbreviate it to 30-45 minutes.
I certainly see nothing wrong with using either free weights, machines, or home made methodologies, such as using common household items as weights. Even doing weight bearing exercises without weights, such as pushups, pull-ups, squats, etc, will help. Just whatever you are more comfortable with. Weight training in any form will only help your running. It makes anyone a stronger runner.....better able to sustain both pace and distance. Leg weight work also promotes faster paces since it develops and strengthens fast twitch fibers, along with slow twitch fibers, which are essential to sustaining a faster stride rate over a longer distance.
For maximum running benefit, weight work should not be bulk-building, which translates to extra weight than one must haul around. This is especially important for guys, who are more susceptible to bulking than gals. Optimum weight training for runners utilizes lower weights and higher reps than body building weight work. Machoism and "testosterone flexing" is out of place for the runner in the weight room.
Some say that weight work for runners is only necessary for the upper body and that running itself takes care of all of the lower body's development needs. I disagree. I know how much stronger my legs are when I do regular weight work. And that helps me to sustain a faster pace longer, push my way up hills easier and power my way through faster finishing kicks. Weight training works and develops leg muscles differently than running does.
Weight training also strengthens leg muscles and tendons which are used minimally in the "forward only" motion of running. Particularly those involved in lateral motion, which running doesn't involve, and lifting, which isn't a factor in running except when running uphill or downhill. Why is this important to runners? Simple.....injury prevention.
Injury prevention is, arguably, the most valuable benefit of weight training to runners. Most running injuries occur from over stressing a particular muscle or tendon.....often either the too much, too soon, the overload syndrome or a sudden unexpected movement. Weight training will push back the threshold of each. I think that weight training is especially important for injury prevention to the runner who incorporates speed work and/or very long runs into his/her program. This is when the stresses of running increases significantly. However, it will benefit runners of all levels.
I consider upper body work to be secondary, but still important, to a runner. A strengthened upper body helps you to maintain form, thus running efficiency, in the late stages of a long race.
Jim2
Sunday, July 19, 1998
Stride Length Mechanics
Based on what I have read and experienced, here's a synopsis of my understanding of increasing stride length.
There are two ways to lengthen stride. Reach out with the leading leg/foot or a longer, stronger support leg "push."
The first way is what I think results in what we usually think of as classic overstriding. It causes foot placement to be too far in front of the body's center of gravity and results in a hard heel landing. It extreme cases, it produces a foot "slap" or "thud." We have all heard people near us in a race whose feet sound like someone is clapping their hands. It has three negative consequences. One is a braking or deceleration action, which the runner must overcome in order to maintain or increase pace. The second is higher risk of injury due to the harder landing. The third, I think, is that all of the resultant stride length increase occurs in the flight or float phase of the stride since the body must travel longer before the leading foot strikes the ground, thus delaying the beginning of the support phase which is where all the power is generated to run faster.
This form of overstriding is caused by excessive knee flexion of the forward leg, hence excessive lower leg extension, which permits the foot to swing further in front of the body's center of gravity. I think it's common among beginning runners because it's a "muscle memory" carry over from walking, where the foot does land well in front of the body's COG. Among more experienced runners, it's often due to insufficient hamstring strength, since these are the muscles that are used to slow lower leg swing and prevent excessive knee flexion. After stopping the forward swing, the hamstrings also have to pull the leg backwards to position it for proper foot placement. If the hamstrings permit, excessive knee flexion occurs, along with insufficient recovery of the leg for proper foot placement.
This form of stride length increase has absolutely no positive benefit and is to be avoided like the plague. Fortunately, it's relatively easily controlled through strengthening the hamstrings and stride manipulation. This is the form of overstriding problem that is, and should be, most often corrected by shortening stride length and increasing stride rate.
The other way to increase stride length, a longer and stronger support phase, has mostly positive consequences. It's the primary biomechanical way we run faster, stride rate increase being the other (secondary) way. The forward thrust generated during the support phase of the stride determines how far we travel with each stride and, ultimately, how fast we run. The stronger the thrust, the greater the potential to propel forward farther and faster. However, the thrust must be channeled in the right direction. Thrust generated by the support leg has horizontal and vertical components. The horizontal component determines how far and fast we are propelled during the float phase. The vertical component determines our vertical displacement during the stride. The greater the horizontal component of thrust, relative to the vertical, the less "pop up" or bounce we will experience relative to distance traveled and the more efficient our stride will be, i.e., the more energy generated will go into moving us forward and the less wasted in moving our body up and down. So, the challenge is to increase the amount of thrust we can efficiently generate, while maximizing the horizontal component and minimizing the vertical component.
Increasing thrust requires increasing ankle and hip flexibility, as well as strengthening of the muscles of the leg and hip. In discussing ankle flexibility, Martin and Coe say "It is a well known fact that a muscle can generate greater shortening (power) if it has been prestretched before tension generation begins. The longer the heel remains near to or in contact with the ground while the knee moves forward, the greater the prestretch on the calf muscles. This will increase both stride length and power." To keep the heel on or near the ground longer, the angle of the support leg has to increase, with respect to vertical, while keeping the foot flat on the ground. How long we can keep the heel on or near the ground is mostly determined by the flexibility of the ankle and hip. Thus, one of the reasons runners should stretch is that it makes you faster, as well as helping to prevent injuries. Of course, increasing leg and hip strength occurs over time through a training program that includes strength runs and weight training.
Increasing thrust increases float time, since you are propelled forward at a faster pace. But, the mechanics involved in generating the increased thrust keep the support leg on the ground for an even longer period of time. Thus, a greater percentage of time during a stride is spent in contact with the ground and a lesser percentage in flight resulting in a net gain in efficiency.
I also think that ankle flexibility is the most important factor in maximizing the forward component of thrust and minimizing vertical displacement. Martin and Coe's "Better Training for Distance Runners" contains an illustration of early and late takeoff on page 27. It shows early takeoff occurring with most of the forefoot still in contact with the ground and the rest of the foot at about a 60-70 degree angle from the ground. OTOH, it shows just the toes in contact with the ground and the foot already beyond 90 degrees for a late takeoff. With the early takeoff, the foot hasn't had a chance to finish rolling forward and presents a more flatfooted "launch pad", which causes more of the thrust to be directed in the vertical direction. Thus, early takeoff will result in a shorter stride length and more vertical displacement, as Martin and Coe say. Said another way, a shortened stride will result in early takeoff and greater "popup."
I think it is possible to overstride from the support phase. It occurs when we try to force a longer support phase before our body is trained to handle it. There are two problems with this. It moves us off of the point of optimum running economy and it increases the risk of injury. However, understriding in the support phase is much more common, and is often caused by a forced increase in stride rate. I still think it's best to let your body find the stride length with which it's most comfortable at any given pace, as long as you control the first form of overstriding.....reaching with the leading leg.
So, my answer to your question is that, I agree with you that a longer stride will increase the flight phase, but not necessarily vertical displacement, which it can even reduce. More importantly, the flight phase is not all that is increased. Far from it! I think most of the increase potential is during the support phase, but it can't be forced. It has to be developed through training. Leg length is the least of the factors involved. Muscle and joint flexibility, along with leg and hip strength, are much more important. That's why I think that shortening stride beyond the point of optimum running economy is a step backward for a runner looking to advance. That's what I meant in an earlier post when I said that it trains us to be "short striders", which is counterproductive in the long run. (No pun intended. :))
Jim2
There are two ways to lengthen stride. Reach out with the leading leg/foot or a longer, stronger support leg "push."
The first way is what I think results in what we usually think of as classic overstriding. It causes foot placement to be too far in front of the body's center of gravity and results in a hard heel landing. It extreme cases, it produces a foot "slap" or "thud." We have all heard people near us in a race whose feet sound like someone is clapping their hands. It has three negative consequences. One is a braking or deceleration action, which the runner must overcome in order to maintain or increase pace. The second is higher risk of injury due to the harder landing. The third, I think, is that all of the resultant stride length increase occurs in the flight or float phase of the stride since the body must travel longer before the leading foot strikes the ground, thus delaying the beginning of the support phase which is where all the power is generated to run faster.
This form of overstriding is caused by excessive knee flexion of the forward leg, hence excessive lower leg extension, which permits the foot to swing further in front of the body's center of gravity. I think it's common among beginning runners because it's a "muscle memory" carry over from walking, where the foot does land well in front of the body's COG. Among more experienced runners, it's often due to insufficient hamstring strength, since these are the muscles that are used to slow lower leg swing and prevent excessive knee flexion. After stopping the forward swing, the hamstrings also have to pull the leg backwards to position it for proper foot placement. If the hamstrings permit, excessive knee flexion occurs, along with insufficient recovery of the leg for proper foot placement.
This form of stride length increase has absolutely no positive benefit and is to be avoided like the plague. Fortunately, it's relatively easily controlled through strengthening the hamstrings and stride manipulation. This is the form of overstriding problem that is, and should be, most often corrected by shortening stride length and increasing stride rate.
The other way to increase stride length, a longer and stronger support phase, has mostly positive consequences. It's the primary biomechanical way we run faster, stride rate increase being the other (secondary) way. The forward thrust generated during the support phase of the stride determines how far we travel with each stride and, ultimately, how fast we run. The stronger the thrust, the greater the potential to propel forward farther and faster. However, the thrust must be channeled in the right direction. Thrust generated by the support leg has horizontal and vertical components. The horizontal component determines how far and fast we are propelled during the float phase. The vertical component determines our vertical displacement during the stride. The greater the horizontal component of thrust, relative to the vertical, the less "pop up" or bounce we will experience relative to distance traveled and the more efficient our stride will be, i.e., the more energy generated will go into moving us forward and the less wasted in moving our body up and down. So, the challenge is to increase the amount of thrust we can efficiently generate, while maximizing the horizontal component and minimizing the vertical component.
Increasing thrust requires increasing ankle and hip flexibility, as well as strengthening of the muscles of the leg and hip. In discussing ankle flexibility, Martin and Coe say "It is a well known fact that a muscle can generate greater shortening (power) if it has been prestretched before tension generation begins. The longer the heel remains near to or in contact with the ground while the knee moves forward, the greater the prestretch on the calf muscles. This will increase both stride length and power." To keep the heel on or near the ground longer, the angle of the support leg has to increase, with respect to vertical, while keeping the foot flat on the ground. How long we can keep the heel on or near the ground is mostly determined by the flexibility of the ankle and hip. Thus, one of the reasons runners should stretch is that it makes you faster, as well as helping to prevent injuries. Of course, increasing leg and hip strength occurs over time through a training program that includes strength runs and weight training.
Increasing thrust increases float time, since you are propelled forward at a faster pace. But, the mechanics involved in generating the increased thrust keep the support leg on the ground for an even longer period of time. Thus, a greater percentage of time during a stride is spent in contact with the ground and a lesser percentage in flight resulting in a net gain in efficiency.
I also think that ankle flexibility is the most important factor in maximizing the forward component of thrust and minimizing vertical displacement. Martin and Coe's "Better Training for Distance Runners" contains an illustration of early and late takeoff on page 27. It shows early takeoff occurring with most of the forefoot still in contact with the ground and the rest of the foot at about a 60-70 degree angle from the ground. OTOH, it shows just the toes in contact with the ground and the foot already beyond 90 degrees for a late takeoff. With the early takeoff, the foot hasn't had a chance to finish rolling forward and presents a more flatfooted "launch pad", which causes more of the thrust to be directed in the vertical direction. Thus, early takeoff will result in a shorter stride length and more vertical displacement, as Martin and Coe say. Said another way, a shortened stride will result in early takeoff and greater "popup."
I think it is possible to overstride from the support phase. It occurs when we try to force a longer support phase before our body is trained to handle it. There are two problems with this. It moves us off of the point of optimum running economy and it increases the risk of injury. However, understriding in the support phase is much more common, and is often caused by a forced increase in stride rate. I still think it's best to let your body find the stride length with which it's most comfortable at any given pace, as long as you control the first form of overstriding.....reaching with the leading leg.
So, my answer to your question is that, I agree with you that a longer stride will increase the flight phase, but not necessarily vertical displacement, which it can even reduce. More importantly, the flight phase is not all that is increased. Far from it! I think most of the increase potential is during the support phase, but it can't be forced. It has to be developed through training. Leg length is the least of the factors involved. Muscle and joint flexibility, along with leg and hip strength, are much more important. That's why I think that shortening stride beyond the point of optimum running economy is a step backward for a runner looking to advance. That's what I meant in an earlier post when I said that it trains us to be "short striders", which is counterproductive in the long run. (No pun intended. :))
Jim2
Friday, July 17, 1998
Stride Mechanics - Post 2
As I said in my previous post, you make some very good points, Jimmy. I just don't think they apply to everyone, especially many of the folks found on the Beginning Forum. And, I do disagree with a couple of your specific opinions.
Firstly, I certainly agree that we should all be striving for a faster stride rate. Especially beginners, who typically have a lot of room for improvement in this area. It is one of the only two ways we have to get faster. And, 180 should be a goal for all of us. Some will reach it. Some won't. Some will get there quickly. Others will take longer. However, it shouldn't be forced at the expense of stride length. I don't think that someone currently running 150 should go out and expect to step it up to 180 instantly. Like any drastic change in running, it should be gradual. And it takes work, not just desire. Fast twitch muscle fibers have to be developed through speed sessions and weight training. Basically, however, stride rate is something that anyone can work on, regardless of his/her level of running. And, as you said, even Glover in his "old stuff" says that stride rate will make you faster. He would be a pretty lousy "authority" if he said otherwise. :)
There is an optimum combination of stride rate and length for any given pace for every runner. You can sometimes run the same pace with less energy expenditure, or run faster with the same energy expenditure, by increasing stride rate and decreasing stride length. (And sometimes vice versa.) As I said in my post, I think this usually means that one is overstriding in the first place. Thus, the adjustment is correcting an existing deficiency and makes one a more efficient runner.
Actually, I think there is also another factor that enters the picture with this adjustment, which we haven't discussed yet. Let's assume that in increasing stride rate from 160 to 180 you maintain the same breathing rate. That's a 12.5% increase in both stride rate and breathing rate. Thus, your oxygen intake increases by that amount per minute/hour/mile/whatever. As long as you are running below your AT, running will be more comfortable at a given pace or faster for a given level of perceived effort. I went through the same experiments shortly after I started running 15 years ago and learned that I could "cruise" easier and/or faster at a certain combination of rate and length than if I adjusted either way from it. That should translate to faster race paces, also.
I don't think I said anything in my post to disagree with you on these points.
However, where I disagree with you is concerning "learning" the ball-heel stride. There are a few people for whom it is natural. They are exceptions. I think it is a mistake for most runners, who are natural heel-ball striders, to attempt to adopt a "learned" ball-heel strike. There are two reasons. One is that it requires more energy per stride than the heel-ball stride, since it is more "explosive." It's true that it has the potential for offering more raw speed. But, since it is a more demanding stride, it can't be sustained for extended distances as well as the heel-ball. Sure, highly developed runners can use it through distances as long as 10k, ala Gebrsellassie and the Kenyans. But, even many, if not most, elites resort to heel-ball for marathons and road races of shorter distances where they aren't running in spikes, as on a track. Most runners aren't speed limited by bio-mechanics anyway. We are more limited by VO2MAX and LT. And, those who develop their LT and VO2MAX to the point that their footstrike becomes the ultimate limiting factor have reached an advanced stage of development and should not hesitate to experiment with footstrike. That ain't most of the folks on this Forum. :-) In other words, I think it's the last thing a runner should try to change in the progression of development. There are many more things to work on before then.
Also, I agree with you that the forefoot inherently has greater shock absorption characteristics than the rigid old heel bone. However, that doesn't translate to a ball-heel stride being more shock absorbing than heel-ball. Let me try to explain that apparent contradiction.
I think there are four natural body shock absorption actions/features.....and they come into play sequentially when running.....the heel, pronation, knee flex and forefoot structure. OK, admittedly the heel structure is not designed for shock absorption. It's only bone with a minimal amount of flesh covering. That's why most people think that heel striking is "pounding". And, it is pounding for a heavy heel striker. However, recognizing that the vast majority to runners are heel strikers, today's running shoes are designed with shock absorption features to augment this area, as well as the rest of the stride, with the use of sophisticated midsole materials and, often, inserts of air or gel. Thus, the shock absorption that occurs at the heel is more due to shoes than bodily structure, although a severe heel strike due to overstriding can still be a problem.
Beyond the shock absorption characteristics of the shoes, most of the shock absorption provided by the body is due to pronation and knee flex, rather than foot structure or foot strike method.....and pronation is limited with a ball-heel strike.
A heel-ball stride permits all four of these shock absorption functions to come into play. A ball-heel stride takes two of them out of the picture (pronation and the heel shock absorption features designed into the shoes) and relies to a much greater extent on just knee flex and the forefoot. Clearly, this is more important to the vast majority of runners who pronate than it is to someone like you is a supinator, Jimmy.
Finally, a ball-heel stride places more stress on the achilles tendons, shins, calves and back than a heel-ball stride does, according to Glover. I find it interesting that only Glover seems to dwell on the relative advantages/disadvantages of foot strikes. All of the others....Daniels, Noakes, Martin and Coe, Higdon....don't really discuss it. However, without exception, as far as I have seen, each illustrates and describes a heel-ball stride when illustrating running form, although Daniels is silent on the subject since his book has a more limited purpose. It's almost as if they simply accept heel striking as a given. Also, several made the point that tampering too much with natural foot strike and stride length can lead to more problems than gains.
Clearly, there is a difference of opinion on which is best. Even among elites. I tend to notice footstrikes in photos of elite runners, because it's something that I've long been interested in. I see a lot more heel strikers than forefoot strikers among road racers at all distances, but it is mixed. A good example is a photo on page 66 of the July issue of RW, which shows the four front runners (two Kenyans, a South African and a Brazillian) in the Boston Marathon at mile 22. Three of the four are about to experience a footstrike. One is clearly a heel strike.....and a fairly hard one it would appear. Another looks like it's probably going to be a heel strike, but could be midfoot. A third looks more like it will be a midfoot strike. The fourth is in the pushoff stage, so there is no way to tell. On page 71 is the women's winner from Ethiopia clearly making a heel strike. They are also all running with their feet low to the ground, i.e., an elitist's version of the shuffle. Contrast that with a photo on page 49 of three finishers in a 1500m and notice the elevation of the runners, who are clearly Power Running. Of course, almost all photos of non-elite runners in the magazine illustrate heel strike. Also, the photos throughout Martin and Coe, Noakes and Daniels books illustrate almost heel strikers almost exclusively.
I really think it's simple. Leave a natural foot strike alone, at least until a very advanced stage of running. For any given pace, find the stride length and rate combination that is most efficient for you. Don't try to manipulate stride rate/length unless you are overstriding. Rely on your progress that results from training, especially speedwork, and racing to increase both stride rate and length. And don't worry if your stride rate isn't quite up to 180 steps/minute.
Jimmy, I think you and I agree more than we disagree on the principles of this discussion. The purpose of my post was not to challenge you. If it sounded that way, I apologize. My only concern was that folks on this Forum who are not ready to experiment with footstrike might rush out and try it.
Jim2
Firstly, I certainly agree that we should all be striving for a faster stride rate. Especially beginners, who typically have a lot of room for improvement in this area. It is one of the only two ways we have to get faster. And, 180 should be a goal for all of us. Some will reach it. Some won't. Some will get there quickly. Others will take longer. However, it shouldn't be forced at the expense of stride length. I don't think that someone currently running 150 should go out and expect to step it up to 180 instantly. Like any drastic change in running, it should be gradual. And it takes work, not just desire. Fast twitch muscle fibers have to be developed through speed sessions and weight training. Basically, however, stride rate is something that anyone can work on, regardless of his/her level of running. And, as you said, even Glover in his "old stuff" says that stride rate will make you faster. He would be a pretty lousy "authority" if he said otherwise. :)
There is an optimum combination of stride rate and length for any given pace for every runner. You can sometimes run the same pace with less energy expenditure, or run faster with the same energy expenditure, by increasing stride rate and decreasing stride length. (And sometimes vice versa.) As I said in my post, I think this usually means that one is overstriding in the first place. Thus, the adjustment is correcting an existing deficiency and makes one a more efficient runner.
Actually, I think there is also another factor that enters the picture with this adjustment, which we haven't discussed yet. Let's assume that in increasing stride rate from 160 to 180 you maintain the same breathing rate. That's a 12.5% increase in both stride rate and breathing rate. Thus, your oxygen intake increases by that amount per minute/hour/mile/whatever. As long as you are running below your AT, running will be more comfortable at a given pace or faster for a given level of perceived effort. I went through the same experiments shortly after I started running 15 years ago and learned that I could "cruise" easier and/or faster at a certain combination of rate and length than if I adjusted either way from it. That should translate to faster race paces, also.
I don't think I said anything in my post to disagree with you on these points.
However, where I disagree with you is concerning "learning" the ball-heel stride. There are a few people for whom it is natural. They are exceptions. I think it is a mistake for most runners, who are natural heel-ball striders, to attempt to adopt a "learned" ball-heel strike. There are two reasons. One is that it requires more energy per stride than the heel-ball stride, since it is more "explosive." It's true that it has the potential for offering more raw speed. But, since it is a more demanding stride, it can't be sustained for extended distances as well as the heel-ball. Sure, highly developed runners can use it through distances as long as 10k, ala Gebrsellassie and the Kenyans. But, even many, if not most, elites resort to heel-ball for marathons and road races of shorter distances where they aren't running in spikes, as on a track. Most runners aren't speed limited by bio-mechanics anyway. We are more limited by VO2MAX and LT. And, those who develop their LT and VO2MAX to the point that their footstrike becomes the ultimate limiting factor have reached an advanced stage of development and should not hesitate to experiment with footstrike. That ain't most of the folks on this Forum. :-) In other words, I think it's the last thing a runner should try to change in the progression of development. There are many more things to work on before then.
Also, I agree with you that the forefoot inherently has greater shock absorption characteristics than the rigid old heel bone. However, that doesn't translate to a ball-heel stride being more shock absorbing than heel-ball. Let me try to explain that apparent contradiction.
I think there are four natural body shock absorption actions/features.....and they come into play sequentially when running.....the heel, pronation, knee flex and forefoot structure. OK, admittedly the heel structure is not designed for shock absorption. It's only bone with a minimal amount of flesh covering. That's why most people think that heel striking is "pounding". And, it is pounding for a heavy heel striker. However, recognizing that the vast majority to runners are heel strikers, today's running shoes are designed with shock absorption features to augment this area, as well as the rest of the stride, with the use of sophisticated midsole materials and, often, inserts of air or gel. Thus, the shock absorption that occurs at the heel is more due to shoes than bodily structure, although a severe heel strike due to overstriding can still be a problem.
Beyond the shock absorption characteristics of the shoes, most of the shock absorption provided by the body is due to pronation and knee flex, rather than foot structure or foot strike method.....and pronation is limited with a ball-heel strike.
A heel-ball stride permits all four of these shock absorption functions to come into play. A ball-heel stride takes two of them out of the picture (pronation and the heel shock absorption features designed into the shoes) and relies to a much greater extent on just knee flex and the forefoot. Clearly, this is more important to the vast majority of runners who pronate than it is to someone like you is a supinator, Jimmy.
Finally, a ball-heel stride places more stress on the achilles tendons, shins, calves and back than a heel-ball stride does, according to Glover. I find it interesting that only Glover seems to dwell on the relative advantages/disadvantages of foot strikes. All of the others....Daniels, Noakes, Martin and Coe, Higdon....don't really discuss it. However, without exception, as far as I have seen, each illustrates and describes a heel-ball stride when illustrating running form, although Daniels is silent on the subject since his book has a more limited purpose. It's almost as if they simply accept heel striking as a given. Also, several made the point that tampering too much with natural foot strike and stride length can lead to more problems than gains.
Clearly, there is a difference of opinion on which is best. Even among elites. I tend to notice footstrikes in photos of elite runners, because it's something that I've long been interested in. I see a lot more heel strikers than forefoot strikers among road racers at all distances, but it is mixed. A good example is a photo on page 66 of the July issue of RW, which shows the four front runners (two Kenyans, a South African and a Brazillian) in the Boston Marathon at mile 22. Three of the four are about to experience a footstrike. One is clearly a heel strike.....and a fairly hard one it would appear. Another looks like it's probably going to be a heel strike, but could be midfoot. A third looks more like it will be a midfoot strike. The fourth is in the pushoff stage, so there is no way to tell. On page 71 is the women's winner from Ethiopia clearly making a heel strike. They are also all running with their feet low to the ground, i.e., an elitist's version of the shuffle. Contrast that with a photo on page 49 of three finishers in a 1500m and notice the elevation of the runners, who are clearly Power Running. Of course, almost all photos of non-elite runners in the magazine illustrate heel strike. Also, the photos throughout Martin and Coe, Noakes and Daniels books illustrate almost heel strikers almost exclusively.
I really think it's simple. Leave a natural foot strike alone, at least until a very advanced stage of running. For any given pace, find the stride length and rate combination that is most efficient for you. Don't try to manipulate stride rate/length unless you are overstriding. Rely on your progress that results from training, especially speedwork, and racing to increase both stride rate and length. And don't worry if your stride rate isn't quite up to 180 steps/minute.
Jimmy, I think you and I agree more than we disagree on the principles of this discussion. The purpose of my post was not to challenge you. If it sounded that way, I apologize. My only concern was that folks on this Forum who are not ready to experiment with footstrike might rush out and try it.
Jim2
Thursday, July 16, 1998
Stride Mechanics - Post 1
There is a thread farther up the page that Jimmy initiated and I want to comment on. I thought I would do it as a new post because the chances are greater that it won't get lost in the rapid rate at which this Forum grows. And I think it's important that a few people read it.
You make some good points, Jimmy. And everyone here who is trying to advance their running should benefit from them. But, they should be used selectively and carefully. I would like to offer a few thoughts and observations, gleaned largely from Bob Glover's "The New Competitive Runner's Handbook", Jack Daniels' "Running Formula", and my personal experience.
There are only three ways to increase speed.....increase stride length, increase stride rate, or increase both. Which is more important in running faster depends on the individual runner, the type and distance of racing one is going to do, and how susceptible to injury the individual is.
Most elite runners do have a stride rate of 180 steps per minute or greater. However, studies have shown that average runners have a stride rate of only about 9-10 steps per minute slower. Thus, although there is some room for an average runner to increase stride rate, it's limited (only about 5%.) Beginners often have more room to improve stride rate since they may be in the 150-160 steps per minute range, or even lower. Basically, however, once you have reached the "average" level (let's define that as "mid-pack" in a race), greater results can be achieved from increasing stride length.....which is the bigger factor separating elite and average runners in a race.
Foot strike is a factor that enters into how much an individual can increase either stride rate or length. A ball-heel strider can increase both stride rate and length. A heel-ball strider is limited in how much stride length can be increased, because of the dynamics and bio-mechanics involved in heel-ball striking, and has to rely more on stride rate gains. However, ball-heel striders expend more energy per stride. Also, the ball-heel stride has an increased susceptibility to injury, since it doesn't permit the shock absorption of pronation as much as the heel-ball stride does. Most people are natural heel-ball striders. Few are natural ball-heel striders.
There is nothing wrong with a heel-ball stride if done properly. The heel strike should be "light." The outside of the heel should very gently touch the ground slightly forward of a runner's center of gravity and you should flow smoothly through the stride as if you are rolling over the ground to a pushoff from the big toe. It's almost a mid-foot strike, but not quite. It is not true that "heel striking" necessarily produces greater "shock" or "compression" and increased injury risk. Just the opposite. Heel strike enables pronation, which is one of the body's natural shock absorption techniques. Ball-heel striding produces minimal pronation. If you land with a heavy heel strike followed by your foot slapping the ground, you are overstriding, which results in the braking action that you described and does increase susceptibility to injury from "pounding." Although the ball-heel stride offers the greater speed potential, the heel-ball stride is the more efficient, can be maintained longer when racing, and minimizes the risk of injury.
Glover recommends that beginning runners and racers, as well as all marathoners, use the heel-ball stride for maximum running efficiency and injury prevention. He points out that even competitive runners often train with a heel-ball stride and use ball-heel for speed work and racing, but not for marathons. He recommends not using the ball-heel stride until you can run 6-7 minutes per mile or faster, which will put you at mid-pack or better in most races. At this speed, you will naturally drift more to midfoot and ball-heel striding anyway. You don't get to those speeds without the longer stride that midfoot striding enables. However, slower runners place significantly increased stress on shins and achilles tendons with the ball-heel stride.
Glover defines two types of runners. The Shuffler and the Power Runner. The Shuffler runs with feet low to the ground, little knee lift and mostly a heel-ball foot strike. The shuffle is not a derogatory term, in this sense. It's a highly efficient form of running with few extraneous motions to waste energy. Power Runners use the ball-heel stride and a longer stride. The longer stride comes from pushing off strongly with the trailing, or support, leg and thrusting the knee (but not the foot) of the leading leg forward. The power stride requires well developed quadriceps and more energy than the shuffle because the longer stride comes from a strong leg "drive", which is inefficient for a long distance runner. It's also interesting to note that, even with a ball-heel stride, a power runner can overstride, if s/he isn't careful.....and with even more negative consequences than overstriding by a shuffler. Not only is there a braking action caused by overstriding, but because of the lack of a forward "rolling" motion of the foot that a shuffler has, the power runner now has to pull his body through the stride.
Sprinters are power runners. Most elite and some advanced runners power run at shorter race distances. However, few marathoners of any level use the power running method. Glover points out that many elite runners, such as Derek Clayton, Alberto Salazar (two previous marathon world record holders) and RW's own Amby Burfoot had to learn to shuffle when they moved up to the marathon distance. Power running simply requires to much energy for even most elite runners to maintain over the marathon distance.
My points in all of this are:
1) Most of the people on this Forum are relative beginners and probably should not attempt ball-heel striding, unless it's their natural stride, until they are more developed and experienced. The increased risk of injury is too great. Advance to at least a mid-pack level runner before experimenting with it.
2) Anyone planning to run a marathon should stick to the shuffle method of running, which mandates a heel-ball stride.
3) There is nothing wrong with anyone attempting to increase stride rate or stride length. In fact, it's the only way any of us become faster runners. But, dramatic changes to one's natural running style to do so can have negative consequences. So, be careful.
4) The way to increase stride rate and/or length is to work on them during speed workouts, which shouldn't be more than 15% of one's weekly mileage. That's one of the reasons for doing speedwork. Use these sessions to ease into the techniques you are going to use to get faster. Let your body adjust to and develop into the changes. Don't manipulate stride mechanics for the purpose of trying to make every training run dramatically faster than you have been running Doing so will make every run closer to a race effort and increase the risks of overtraining or injury. Continue to let your race pace drive your training paces as you deal with speed in speed workouts.
5) It's OK to sacrifice some stride length for increased stride rate on easy runs if you feel that increases your pace somewhat.....as long as you don't increase your level of effort as perceived or as measured effort with a HRM. Yes, this might permit you to run a little faster at a comfortable effort. But, be aware that you are also now "practicing" (developing??) a shortened stride length, which ultimately is the factor that separates the best you can be from second best. Personally, I would only do that if I was overstriding in the first place. Then you would be correcting a problem, which is what you are actually doing if it makes you faster without increased level of effort. After all, you are still moving the same body mass over the same distance, which takes a fixed amount of work. The ability to do it faster probably means that you have eliminated a braking action and are running with greater economy, i.e., you have corrected overstriding. Glover claims that studies have shown that the average runner overstrides. And, you can bet that most don't know it!
Remember, there aren't any silver bullets in running. But, there are 3 "P's" which are all important to making progress without undue injury risk......Patience, Perseverance and a Plan.
Jim2
You make some good points, Jimmy. And everyone here who is trying to advance their running should benefit from them. But, they should be used selectively and carefully. I would like to offer a few thoughts and observations, gleaned largely from Bob Glover's "The New Competitive Runner's Handbook", Jack Daniels' "Running Formula", and my personal experience.
There are only three ways to increase speed.....increase stride length, increase stride rate, or increase both. Which is more important in running faster depends on the individual runner, the type and distance of racing one is going to do, and how susceptible to injury the individual is.
Most elite runners do have a stride rate of 180 steps per minute or greater. However, studies have shown that average runners have a stride rate of only about 9-10 steps per minute slower. Thus, although there is some room for an average runner to increase stride rate, it's limited (only about 5%.) Beginners often have more room to improve stride rate since they may be in the 150-160 steps per minute range, or even lower. Basically, however, once you have reached the "average" level (let's define that as "mid-pack" in a race), greater results can be achieved from increasing stride length.....which is the bigger factor separating elite and average runners in a race.
Foot strike is a factor that enters into how much an individual can increase either stride rate or length. A ball-heel strider can increase both stride rate and length. A heel-ball strider is limited in how much stride length can be increased, because of the dynamics and bio-mechanics involved in heel-ball striking, and has to rely more on stride rate gains. However, ball-heel striders expend more energy per stride. Also, the ball-heel stride has an increased susceptibility to injury, since it doesn't permit the shock absorption of pronation as much as the heel-ball stride does. Most people are natural heel-ball striders. Few are natural ball-heel striders.
There is nothing wrong with a heel-ball stride if done properly. The heel strike should be "light." The outside of the heel should very gently touch the ground slightly forward of a runner's center of gravity and you should flow smoothly through the stride as if you are rolling over the ground to a pushoff from the big toe. It's almost a mid-foot strike, but not quite. It is not true that "heel striking" necessarily produces greater "shock" or "compression" and increased injury risk. Just the opposite. Heel strike enables pronation, which is one of the body's natural shock absorption techniques. Ball-heel striding produces minimal pronation. If you land with a heavy heel strike followed by your foot slapping the ground, you are overstriding, which results in the braking action that you described and does increase susceptibility to injury from "pounding." Although the ball-heel stride offers the greater speed potential, the heel-ball stride is the more efficient, can be maintained longer when racing, and minimizes the risk of injury.
Glover recommends that beginning runners and racers, as well as all marathoners, use the heel-ball stride for maximum running efficiency and injury prevention. He points out that even competitive runners often train with a heel-ball stride and use ball-heel for speed work and racing, but not for marathons. He recommends not using the ball-heel stride until you can run 6-7 minutes per mile or faster, which will put you at mid-pack or better in most races. At this speed, you will naturally drift more to midfoot and ball-heel striding anyway. You don't get to those speeds without the longer stride that midfoot striding enables. However, slower runners place significantly increased stress on shins and achilles tendons with the ball-heel stride.
Glover defines two types of runners. The Shuffler and the Power Runner. The Shuffler runs with feet low to the ground, little knee lift and mostly a heel-ball foot strike. The shuffle is not a derogatory term, in this sense. It's a highly efficient form of running with few extraneous motions to waste energy. Power Runners use the ball-heel stride and a longer stride. The longer stride comes from pushing off strongly with the trailing, or support, leg and thrusting the knee (but not the foot) of the leading leg forward. The power stride requires well developed quadriceps and more energy than the shuffle because the longer stride comes from a strong leg "drive", which is inefficient for a long distance runner. It's also interesting to note that, even with a ball-heel stride, a power runner can overstride, if s/he isn't careful.....and with even more negative consequences than overstriding by a shuffler. Not only is there a braking action caused by overstriding, but because of the lack of a forward "rolling" motion of the foot that a shuffler has, the power runner now has to pull his body through the stride.
Sprinters are power runners. Most elite and some advanced runners power run at shorter race distances. However, few marathoners of any level use the power running method. Glover points out that many elite runners, such as Derek Clayton, Alberto Salazar (two previous marathon world record holders) and RW's own Amby Burfoot had to learn to shuffle when they moved up to the marathon distance. Power running simply requires to much energy for even most elite runners to maintain over the marathon distance.
My points in all of this are:
1) Most of the people on this Forum are relative beginners and probably should not attempt ball-heel striding, unless it's their natural stride, until they are more developed and experienced. The increased risk of injury is too great. Advance to at least a mid-pack level runner before experimenting with it.
2) Anyone planning to run a marathon should stick to the shuffle method of running, which mandates a heel-ball stride.
3) There is nothing wrong with anyone attempting to increase stride rate or stride length. In fact, it's the only way any of us become faster runners. But, dramatic changes to one's natural running style to do so can have negative consequences. So, be careful.
4) The way to increase stride rate and/or length is to work on them during speed workouts, which shouldn't be more than 15% of one's weekly mileage. That's one of the reasons for doing speedwork. Use these sessions to ease into the techniques you are going to use to get faster. Let your body adjust to and develop into the changes. Don't manipulate stride mechanics for the purpose of trying to make every training run dramatically faster than you have been running Doing so will make every run closer to a race effort and increase the risks of overtraining or injury. Continue to let your race pace drive your training paces as you deal with speed in speed workouts.
5) It's OK to sacrifice some stride length for increased stride rate on easy runs if you feel that increases your pace somewhat.....as long as you don't increase your level of effort as perceived or as measured effort with a HRM. Yes, this might permit you to run a little faster at a comfortable effort. But, be aware that you are also now "practicing" (developing??) a shortened stride length, which ultimately is the factor that separates the best you can be from second best. Personally, I would only do that if I was overstriding in the first place. Then you would be correcting a problem, which is what you are actually doing if it makes you faster without increased level of effort. After all, you are still moving the same body mass over the same distance, which takes a fixed amount of work. The ability to do it faster probably means that you have eliminated a braking action and are running with greater economy, i.e., you have corrected overstriding. Glover claims that studies have shown that the average runner overstrides. And, you can bet that most don't know it!
Remember, there aren't any silver bullets in running. But, there are 3 "P's" which are all important to making progress without undue injury risk......Patience, Perseverance and a Plan.
Jim2
Monday, June 22, 1998
Foot Strike
It's generally best to let your foot strike in whatever way is natural. Only tamper with it if your natural style is causing a problem. The only exception to this is for very severe heel strikers.
Most runners are heel strikers. A mid-foot strike is a good compromise between running efficiency and injury risk. And forefoot strikers are in the minority, by far. So, which is best?? There are advantages to each.
One reason nature has made most of us heel strikers is so we can pronate as we roll through our stride, which is a natural cushioning bio-mechanic. Although over-pronation is bad and can lead to injuries, normal pronation is good and desirable. A forefoot strike limits pronation, thus denying you one of nature's cushions.
It's important to run in the proper type of shoes, depending on individual biomechanics. Forefoot strikers and heel strikers who do not over pronate should wear "cushioning" shoes. Heel strikers who are also over pronators need "stability" or "motion control" shoes.
A forefoot strike generates more power, thus enabling faster running, but isn't as efficient as heel or midfoot striking. That's why sprinters always "run on their toes." Also, many elite long distance runners are forefoot strikers. But, not all are. Few marathoners are forefoot strikers. Footstrike is only one factor that determines how fast you can run over a long distance. And, generally, the longer the distance, the less important the power of forefoot striking is and the more important is the efficiency of heel/midfoot striking.
Runners often reach a point where they want to try things to make them just a little faster. For a heel striker, changing the foot strike to midfoot is one way to get faster. However, going from heel striking to the forefoot is a very extreme, difficult and risky change. So, the midfoot is a good compromise.....a little more speed with less increase in injury risk. And most heel strikers can make this transition with a little practice. Forefoot strikers have no such motivation to change.
Forefoot running might, and I emphasize "might", make you more injury prone. If a forefoot striker suffers injuries or shin splints as his/her running progresses, especially as distances increase, s/he might want to consider working on a mid-foot strike. But, as long as shoe selection provides the cushioning need, there is no reason to change anything. A dramatic change to natural stride and foot strike might be the most risky thing s/he could do.
Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Jim2
Most runners are heel strikers. A mid-foot strike is a good compromise between running efficiency and injury risk. And forefoot strikers are in the minority, by far. So, which is best?? There are advantages to each.
One reason nature has made most of us heel strikers is so we can pronate as we roll through our stride, which is a natural cushioning bio-mechanic. Although over-pronation is bad and can lead to injuries, normal pronation is good and desirable. A forefoot strike limits pronation, thus denying you one of nature's cushions.
It's important to run in the proper type of shoes, depending on individual biomechanics. Forefoot strikers and heel strikers who do not over pronate should wear "cushioning" shoes. Heel strikers who are also over pronators need "stability" or "motion control" shoes.
A forefoot strike generates more power, thus enabling faster running, but isn't as efficient as heel or midfoot striking. That's why sprinters always "run on their toes." Also, many elite long distance runners are forefoot strikers. But, not all are. Few marathoners are forefoot strikers. Footstrike is only one factor that determines how fast you can run over a long distance. And, generally, the longer the distance, the less important the power of forefoot striking is and the more important is the efficiency of heel/midfoot striking.
Runners often reach a point where they want to try things to make them just a little faster. For a heel striker, changing the foot strike to midfoot is one way to get faster. However, going from heel striking to the forefoot is a very extreme, difficult and risky change. So, the midfoot is a good compromise.....a little more speed with less increase in injury risk. And most heel strikers can make this transition with a little practice. Forefoot strikers have no such motivation to change.
Forefoot running might, and I emphasize "might", make you more injury prone. If a forefoot striker suffers injuries or shin splints as his/her running progresses, especially as distances increase, s/he might want to consider working on a mid-foot strike. But, as long as shoe selection provides the cushioning need, there is no reason to change anything. A dramatic change to natural stride and foot strike might be the most risky thing s/he could do.
Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Jim2
Thursday, January 1, 1998
The Basics of Speed Training
A serious racer should use a variety of 3-4 "standard" types of speed training to prepare to race his or her best at any distance from 5k to marathon. What changes with race distance is the mix of different speed workouts. The following reflects my opinions based largely on what I have gleaned from my two favorite running reference books, "Daniels' Running Formula" by Jack Daniels and "The Competitive Runner's Handbook" by Bob Glover, plus my personal experiences in 17 years of training and racing.
There are several body "systems" or features that, together, determine how fast you can run for a given distance. Each has to be developed to enable your maximum race pace ability. Let's call these the "goals" of speed training. These goals are:
1. Improve anaerobic threshold (AT) or lactate threshold (LT), which determines pace at which you go into the anaerobic zone and lactic acid begins to build up in your muscles, which causes fatigue and reduces muscle fluidness.
2. Increase aerobic capacity or VO2Max, which is a combination of maximum oxygen uptake and your body's ability to process the oxygen to muscles where it's needed to burn glycogen and fat for energy.
3. Improve running economy, running strength, and anaerobic capacity. Running economy is how efficiently you use oxygen when running at a given pace. That's not the same as aerobic capacity. Increased running economy permits you to utilize a lower percentage of your aerobic capacity at any pace. Running strength is your body's overall ability to handle "overload" demands, as well as to stay within the "comfort zone" at faster paces. Anaerobic capacity is your ability to run without sufficient oxygen or to hold pace and form outside the "comfort zone."
4. Condition and program your body and mind to run at race pace.
There are 4 basic categories of speed training to accomplish these goals. I'm going to use Jack Daniels terminology because I think it makes it easier to relate the categories to the above goals.
1. Threshold training. These are tempo runs and cruise intervals which improve the anaerobic threshold. They are run at 85-92% of maximum heart rate (Hrmax) or AT pace, which is reached at 10-20 sec/mile slower than 10k race pace. A tempo run is simply 20-40 minutes of running at AT pace. For most of us, that translates to 3-6 miles. It's best to do them on fairly level ground so you can better control the pace. If your route requires that you run hills and you don't use a HR monitor, just adjust the pace so that it "feels" like AT pace. Cruise intervals are a substitute for a tempo run. They are 800m to 2 mile intervals at AT pace with brief recovery, like a minute or less, between them. Keeping the recovery periods very short permits blood lactate levels to remain fairly constant so that you experience a threshold effort throughout the session. The advantages of the breaks are that they permit you to do a little more threshold running (like 4 miles instead of a 3 mile tempo effort) while still making the session a little easier mentally than a tempo run since you have the breaks to look forward to. I seldom do tempo runs, but mostly use 1 and 2 mile cruise intervals instead, mainly because my brief breaks are to drink water, which I do at least every couple of miles even when doing speed training.
2. Intervals. These are for VO2Max, or aerobic capacity, development. They are 400-1200m (440-1320 yard) intervals at 98-100% of HRmax or about 5k race pace with recovery time equal to or slightly less than interval running time. The trick here is to recover sufficiently to be able to complete the session at the target pace without making it an "all out" effort, but also without recovering fully between interval workbouts. One of Glover's guidelines is to recover to a heart rate of 120. Glover also allows these to be run over a pace range of 5-10k pace and for as long as 1 mile, depending on the stage of a training cycle you are in. Intervals are considered by many as the bread and butter of speed training. Yasso 800s are simply a special form of intervals used for a specific reason....to verify your aeroic capacity readiness to run a particular marathon time. However, doing them successfully doesn't mean that your endurance, AT and running strength/economy are adequate to support the pace over the full 26.2 miles.
3. Repetitions. Glover calls them power intervals. They are short, fast intervals which improve anaerobic metabolism, as well as running mechanics, strength and economy. Usually 200-400m (220-440 yard) repetitions faster than 5k race pace, but not an all out sprint, with very long, full recovery. Daniels guidelines call for a repetition pace of 6 seconds faster per 400m than interval pace (that's 24 sec/mile faster than 5k race pace) and recovery times as long as 4 times the rep time. Glover says to recover up to 5 times the rep time. These are fast and hard. But short enough to stay relaxed through them. They call into play the fast twitch muscle fibers that not only help you to run faster, but also play a large role in determining running economy.
4. Marathon Pace runs. Obviously, these are intended to practice race pace so that your body and mind become comfortable with it. They are usually 6-13 miles at marathon pace, but can be as long as 18-20 miles for experienced marathoners. You only have to do a couple of them late in a marathon program. Race pace training for shorter distances doesn't make a lot of sense….at least not over continuous, extended distances. Such training would quickly approach being a race effort. It's better to "train" at race pace for shorter distances by racing frequently. There is more flexibility to run a lot more races in a shorter distance program than there is in a marathon program. Also, there is plenty of race pace running in the intervals.
Daniels also provides guidelines on how much of weekly mileage should be comprised of the first three categories. He says that threshold running can be up to 10% of weekly mileage, intervals up to 8% and reps up to 5%. In other words, the harder and faster the speed work, the lower the percentage of weekly mileage it should be. Of course, you shouldn't do all three types in any one week. One or two speed sessions per week is enough hard work for any of us. In weeks that include a race, only do one speed session and make sure it's at least 3 days before the race. And, obviously, all other running, including long runs, should be in the "easy" range of 70-80% HRmax or 1-2 minutes per mile slower than 10k race pace.
There are lots of variations of these 4 basic speed work categories. Hill repeats, for example, which are intervals run on hills. Daniels considers them to be a form of Repetitions and prefers they be done on a treadmill so the incline can be precisely controlled. Glover considers them to be a key element of the strengthening phase of a training program and talks extensively about them in his book. He defines categories of long hills (a quarter mile or so) and short hills (50- 200 yards), with the short hills twice as steep as the long ones. He recommends that both be run anywhere from repetition pace to 10k race pace, depending on your level of ability, but the short ones faster than the long hills. Hill repeats are great for improving running strength and economy. I can verify from my experience that hill training will go a long way to make you a faster runner and stronger marathoner.
Fartlek, the Swedish word for "speed play", is simply a less structured form of any of the speed work categories and can include a mix of them. Fartleks are a good way to introduce speed work into each training cycles or to provide a little "break" from the rigors of a training program while still deriving speed work benefit.
There are lots of other variations of speed training....ladders, pyramids, cutdowns, cut times, cruise repetitions, rolling hills fartlek, long run tempo, and others. All are forms or mixes of the 3 basic categories of threshold, intervals, and repetitions.
Some speed training categories provide other training benefit in addition to that for which they are primarily intended. For instance, intervals not only develop VO2Max, but they also help lower AT. However, that doesn't mean that threshold runs should be eliminated and replaced with intervals to get a "double bang" for your effort. Intervals aren't as efficient as tempo runs for developing AT. Since intervals are harder and run a lot faster than threshold pace, you can't run as far at interval pace as you can at AT pace in a single session. It's for that reason that Daniels recommends that they be a lower percentage of weekly mileage than threshold running. The best approach is to include the optimum balance of speed training categories in any training program.
In scheduling speed work into a training program, I use a few guidelines:
1. Three of the four categories should be included in every training program from 5k to marathon. The exception is Marathon Pace runs, which is only used in marathon training.
2. The shorter the race distance you are training for, the more emphasis should be placed on Repetitions.
3. The longer the race distance you are training for, the more emphasis should be placed on threshold (AT) training.
4. Intervals (VO2Max or aerobic capacity training) play an equally important part in training for all distances.
For example, in training for a marathon, which is raced mostly in the aerobic zone, I try to schedule up to 50-60% of my speed work as threshold runs, 30-40% as intervals and 10% as repetitions, plus a couple of MP runs. For 10k training, where race pace is slightly anaerobic but not quite at aerobic capacity, it's more like 30% threshold, 50% interval and 20% repetition with more frequent speed sessions, since total mileage and long runs are less than in a marathon program.
For more details about speed training, I would strongly recommend the two references that I mentioned earlier.....Daniels book, "Daniels' Running Formula" in which he does an excellent job of explaining the categories of speed work, what each does for you, and determining pacing for speed work.....and Glover's 1999 edition of "The Competitive Runner's Handbook," which is a very comprehensive guide to training for all distances from 5k to marathon.
Jim2
There are several body "systems" or features that, together, determine how fast you can run for a given distance. Each has to be developed to enable your maximum race pace ability. Let's call these the "goals" of speed training. These goals are:
1. Improve anaerobic threshold (AT) or lactate threshold (LT), which determines pace at which you go into the anaerobic zone and lactic acid begins to build up in your muscles, which causes fatigue and reduces muscle fluidness.
2. Increase aerobic capacity or VO2Max, which is a combination of maximum oxygen uptake and your body's ability to process the oxygen to muscles where it's needed to burn glycogen and fat for energy.
3. Improve running economy, running strength, and anaerobic capacity. Running economy is how efficiently you use oxygen when running at a given pace. That's not the same as aerobic capacity. Increased running economy permits you to utilize a lower percentage of your aerobic capacity at any pace. Running strength is your body's overall ability to handle "overload" demands, as well as to stay within the "comfort zone" at faster paces. Anaerobic capacity is your ability to run without sufficient oxygen or to hold pace and form outside the "comfort zone."
4. Condition and program your body and mind to run at race pace.
There are 4 basic categories of speed training to accomplish these goals. I'm going to use Jack Daniels terminology because I think it makes it easier to relate the categories to the above goals.
1. Threshold training. These are tempo runs and cruise intervals which improve the anaerobic threshold. They are run at 85-92% of maximum heart rate (Hrmax) or AT pace, which is reached at 10-20 sec/mile slower than 10k race pace. A tempo run is simply 20-40 minutes of running at AT pace. For most of us, that translates to 3-6 miles. It's best to do them on fairly level ground so you can better control the pace. If your route requires that you run hills and you don't use a HR monitor, just adjust the pace so that it "feels" like AT pace. Cruise intervals are a substitute for a tempo run. They are 800m to 2 mile intervals at AT pace with brief recovery, like a minute or less, between them. Keeping the recovery periods very short permits blood lactate levels to remain fairly constant so that you experience a threshold effort throughout the session. The advantages of the breaks are that they permit you to do a little more threshold running (like 4 miles instead of a 3 mile tempo effort) while still making the session a little easier mentally than a tempo run since you have the breaks to look forward to. I seldom do tempo runs, but mostly use 1 and 2 mile cruise intervals instead, mainly because my brief breaks are to drink water, which I do at least every couple of miles even when doing speed training.
2. Intervals. These are for VO2Max, or aerobic capacity, development. They are 400-1200m (440-1320 yard) intervals at 98-100% of HRmax or about 5k race pace with recovery time equal to or slightly less than interval running time. The trick here is to recover sufficiently to be able to complete the session at the target pace without making it an "all out" effort, but also without recovering fully between interval workbouts. One of Glover's guidelines is to recover to a heart rate of 120. Glover also allows these to be run over a pace range of 5-10k pace and for as long as 1 mile, depending on the stage of a training cycle you are in. Intervals are considered by many as the bread and butter of speed training. Yasso 800s are simply a special form of intervals used for a specific reason....to verify your aeroic capacity readiness to run a particular marathon time. However, doing them successfully doesn't mean that your endurance, AT and running strength/economy are adequate to support the pace over the full 26.2 miles.
3. Repetitions. Glover calls them power intervals. They are short, fast intervals which improve anaerobic metabolism, as well as running mechanics, strength and economy. Usually 200-400m (220-440 yard) repetitions faster than 5k race pace, but not an all out sprint, with very long, full recovery. Daniels guidelines call for a repetition pace of 6 seconds faster per 400m than interval pace (that's 24 sec/mile faster than 5k race pace) and recovery times as long as 4 times the rep time. Glover says to recover up to 5 times the rep time. These are fast and hard. But short enough to stay relaxed through them. They call into play the fast twitch muscle fibers that not only help you to run faster, but also play a large role in determining running economy.
4. Marathon Pace runs. Obviously, these are intended to practice race pace so that your body and mind become comfortable with it. They are usually 6-13 miles at marathon pace, but can be as long as 18-20 miles for experienced marathoners. You only have to do a couple of them late in a marathon program. Race pace training for shorter distances doesn't make a lot of sense….at least not over continuous, extended distances. Such training would quickly approach being a race effort. It's better to "train" at race pace for shorter distances by racing frequently. There is more flexibility to run a lot more races in a shorter distance program than there is in a marathon program. Also, there is plenty of race pace running in the intervals.
Daniels also provides guidelines on how much of weekly mileage should be comprised of the first three categories. He says that threshold running can be up to 10% of weekly mileage, intervals up to 8% and reps up to 5%. In other words, the harder and faster the speed work, the lower the percentage of weekly mileage it should be. Of course, you shouldn't do all three types in any one week. One or two speed sessions per week is enough hard work for any of us. In weeks that include a race, only do one speed session and make sure it's at least 3 days before the race. And, obviously, all other running, including long runs, should be in the "easy" range of 70-80% HRmax or 1-2 minutes per mile slower than 10k race pace.
There are lots of variations of these 4 basic speed work categories. Hill repeats, for example, which are intervals run on hills. Daniels considers them to be a form of Repetitions and prefers they be done on a treadmill so the incline can be precisely controlled. Glover considers them to be a key element of the strengthening phase of a training program and talks extensively about them in his book. He defines categories of long hills (a quarter mile or so) and short hills (50- 200 yards), with the short hills twice as steep as the long ones. He recommends that both be run anywhere from repetition pace to 10k race pace, depending on your level of ability, but the short ones faster than the long hills. Hill repeats are great for improving running strength and economy. I can verify from my experience that hill training will go a long way to make you a faster runner and stronger marathoner.
Fartlek, the Swedish word for "speed play", is simply a less structured form of any of the speed work categories and can include a mix of them. Fartleks are a good way to introduce speed work into each training cycles or to provide a little "break" from the rigors of a training program while still deriving speed work benefit.
There are lots of other variations of speed training....ladders, pyramids, cutdowns, cut times, cruise repetitions, rolling hills fartlek, long run tempo, and others. All are forms or mixes of the 3 basic categories of threshold, intervals, and repetitions.
Some speed training categories provide other training benefit in addition to that for which they are primarily intended. For instance, intervals not only develop VO2Max, but they also help lower AT. However, that doesn't mean that threshold runs should be eliminated and replaced with intervals to get a "double bang" for your effort. Intervals aren't as efficient as tempo runs for developing AT. Since intervals are harder and run a lot faster than threshold pace, you can't run as far at interval pace as you can at AT pace in a single session. It's for that reason that Daniels recommends that they be a lower percentage of weekly mileage than threshold running. The best approach is to include the optimum balance of speed training categories in any training program.
In scheduling speed work into a training program, I use a few guidelines:
1. Three of the four categories should be included in every training program from 5k to marathon. The exception is Marathon Pace runs, which is only used in marathon training.
2. The shorter the race distance you are training for, the more emphasis should be placed on Repetitions.
3. The longer the race distance you are training for, the more emphasis should be placed on threshold (AT) training.
4. Intervals (VO2Max or aerobic capacity training) play an equally important part in training for all distances.
For example, in training for a marathon, which is raced mostly in the aerobic zone, I try to schedule up to 50-60% of my speed work as threshold runs, 30-40% as intervals and 10% as repetitions, plus a couple of MP runs. For 10k training, where race pace is slightly anaerobic but not quite at aerobic capacity, it's more like 30% threshold, 50% interval and 20% repetition with more frequent speed sessions, since total mileage and long runs are less than in a marathon program.
For more details about speed training, I would strongly recommend the two references that I mentioned earlier.....Daniels book, "Daniels' Running Formula" in which he does an excellent job of explaining the categories of speed work, what each does for you, and determining pacing for speed work.....and Glover's 1999 edition of "The Competitive Runner's Handbook," which is a very comprehensive guide to training for all distances from 5k to marathon.
Jim2
Natural Assets and Weaknesses
Where should a runner place the greater emphasis in a training regimen? On inherent assets in order to maximize them? Or on the development of natural weaknesses?
I prefer to emphasize the area in which I can realize the most gain at the time and under the conditions that currently exist. That can be either an inherent (natural) asset or weakness. It depends on the purpose of the training program and current state of development.
I think there are three basic elements of training....speed, strength and endurance. (Some will argue that there is a fourth....economy. I think economy is an inherent characteristic that is optimized by working on the other three.) Also, there are two variables that determine how fast you run.....stride rate and stride length. And, there are three body "systems" that have to be developed to become the best one can be.....VO2max, AT/LT and cardio-respiratory.
Generally, I relate speed to stride rate and VO2max; strength to stride length and AT/LT; and endurance to the capacity and efficiency of the cardio-respiratory system. That's an over simplification and there are interrelations between all of these, but this "compartmentalization" gives me a framework of reference to use in my training programs.
Every training program should include a mix of all three categories. However, the emphasis of a training program should be placed where the greatest gain can be realized against current running and racing goals. For instance, I think that a person who has a "natural asset", like speed, should not spend a lot of time working on it in a training program, as long as bigger gains can be made by emphasizing the other areas. In this case, s/he should work more on strength and/or endurance to round out his/her development.
OTOH, I also think that there is a difference between "natural" and "current" assets and weaknesses. A natural asset might become a current weakness if it is ignored too much in training. For instance, we all have a fixed mix of fast and slow twitch fibers, which determines our "natural" speed. But, maintaining that asset at an optimum level requires some degree of appropriate work in training. So, a person with "inherent natural speed" can find there it has deteriorated and lack of speed has become a hindrance to optimum race performance because of insufficient attention in training.
To use myself as an example.....basically, speed is my limiting "natural weakness"; endurance is my greatest "natural asset"; and strength falls somewhere between these two. However, there have been different times in my first running life when I was in peak running form that each of the three was my "current" weakness and I adjusted my training regimen accordingly. When I began my second running life on 6/1/97, all three were huge weaknesses. I have focused on developing my best asset....endurance (base)....first. Then I shifted emphasis to strength development. Now I'm finally getting around to working on my fundamental weakness, speed, although strength is still a close second. In the future when I am back to a peak, I will emphasize speed and strength work more than endurance on an ongoing basis, as long as I continue to get adequate LSD's and sufficient total mileage to maintain my endurance base.
Basically, I think that specific assets and weaknesses are fluid. It's necessary to evaluate where we are in our training/development at any point in time relative to our inherent asset limitations and decide where we can get the most bang for busting our butts.
Jim2
I prefer to emphasize the area in which I can realize the most gain at the time and under the conditions that currently exist. That can be either an inherent (natural) asset or weakness. It depends on the purpose of the training program and current state of development.
I think there are three basic elements of training....speed, strength and endurance. (Some will argue that there is a fourth....economy. I think economy is an inherent characteristic that is optimized by working on the other three.) Also, there are two variables that determine how fast you run.....stride rate and stride length. And, there are three body "systems" that have to be developed to become the best one can be.....VO2max, AT/LT and cardio-respiratory.
Generally, I relate speed to stride rate and VO2max; strength to stride length and AT/LT; and endurance to the capacity and efficiency of the cardio-respiratory system. That's an over simplification and there are interrelations between all of these, but this "compartmentalization" gives me a framework of reference to use in my training programs.
Every training program should include a mix of all three categories. However, the emphasis of a training program should be placed where the greatest gain can be realized against current running and racing goals. For instance, I think that a person who has a "natural asset", like speed, should not spend a lot of time working on it in a training program, as long as bigger gains can be made by emphasizing the other areas. In this case, s/he should work more on strength and/or endurance to round out his/her development.
OTOH, I also think that there is a difference between "natural" and "current" assets and weaknesses. A natural asset might become a current weakness if it is ignored too much in training. For instance, we all have a fixed mix of fast and slow twitch fibers, which determines our "natural" speed. But, maintaining that asset at an optimum level requires some degree of appropriate work in training. So, a person with "inherent natural speed" can find there it has deteriorated and lack of speed has become a hindrance to optimum race performance because of insufficient attention in training.
To use myself as an example.....basically, speed is my limiting "natural weakness"; endurance is my greatest "natural asset"; and strength falls somewhere between these two. However, there have been different times in my first running life when I was in peak running form that each of the three was my "current" weakness and I adjusted my training regimen accordingly. When I began my second running life on 6/1/97, all three were huge weaknesses. I have focused on developing my best asset....endurance (base)....first. Then I shifted emphasis to strength development. Now I'm finally getting around to working on my fundamental weakness, speed, although strength is still a close second. In the future when I am back to a peak, I will emphasize speed and strength work more than endurance on an ongoing basis, as long as I continue to get adequate LSD's and sufficient total mileage to maintain my endurance base.
Basically, I think that specific assets and weaknesses are fluid. It's necessary to evaluate where we are in our training/development at any point in time relative to our inherent asset limitations and decide where we can get the most bang for busting our butts.
Jim2
Hill Running
Running hills regularly will make you a stronger, hence faster, runner. The trick is to run them so that you don't injure yourself.....which is more often caused by downhill, not uphill, running as many people think.....to cope with the "difficulty" of running uphill and to run both uphill and downhill with optimum running economy. Fortunately, there are techniques to deal with these objectives.
Hill running techniques fall into two categories.....physical and mental.
On the physical side, the key things are a forward lean, stride adjustments, use of your arms, footstrike and maintaining a steady level of perceived effort.
It's important to lean forward, not backward, when running both uphill and downhill....lean into the hill when running uphill and away from it when running downhill. Leaning forward does not mean bending forward at the waist, which is a natural reaction to running uphill. Bending at the waist has two negative consequences which will make your task much tougher. It pushes your hips and buttocks back to compensate for the forward lean of your upper body in order to maintain your center of gravity over your feet. That distorts running form and reduces running economy. It also compresses your lungs slightly and restricts their ability to expand, which reduces your air intake.....just what you don't need when running. And, it doesn't take much of a bend. Experiment with bending forward while running comfortably on level ground and you will be able to detect the effect on lung expansion.
A proper forward lean is done at the ankle while keeping the body "erect" with head, torso, hips, and feet aligned. Thus, when going uphill, your body should not be perpendicular to the surface you are running on, but should remain vertical with your center of gravity still over your leading foot.
When going downhill, the tendency is to "hold back" to control your pace by leaning back at the ankles to remain vertical. That's a mistake. It causes your foot strike to move ahead of your center of gravity and results in a braking action and jambs your feet to the front of your shoes. It also results in a hard heel strike. Run downhill as if you were running on level ground. Stay perpendicular to the surface you are running on, which will require a forward lean relative to the vertical, and let the force of gravity work for you. Don't worry. No matter how steep the hill, your legs will keep up and keep you from falling forward. It's called "falling down the hill", or "throwing yourself down the hill." I call it a free ride. Control downhill speed with the combination of forward lean and stride length.
My points of focus to maintain proper posture over a hill are my hips and chest. I concentrate on pressing them forward into the hill when going uphill and away from the hill when going downhill, which prevents bending at the waist, ensures a forward lean and maintains an erect body.
When running uphill, increase stride rate and shorten your stride slightly, which will keep your center of gravity over or slightly ahead of your lead foot, and lift your knees a little more than usual on the flats. Also, increase your arm swing slightly. Driving the arms a little harder will help to overcome the pull of gravity.
When running downhill, lengthen your stride a little and pay attention to your footstrike. Avoid hard heel strikes, which indicates that you are leaning back and overstriding with your knees too straight or locked and a lot of shock transmitted to your legs, knees, and hips. Try to land midfoot or forefoot with your knees flexed. A gentle heel strike followed by a quick roll onto the forefoot is OK if "forcing" a midfoot landing isn't comfortable. Unlike running uphill, an exaggerated arm swing is counter-productive when running downhill. Gravity provides the power going downhill. The arms are used mostly to maintain balance and rhythm.
The main thing to do to prevent injury and trashing quads when running hills is to minimize the pounding of downhill running by leaning forward and avoiding hard heel strikes.
Maintain a steady level of perceived effort, not pace, over hills. Keep the effort the same as if you were running on level ground. Thus, your pace will be slower when going uphill and faster going downhill than running on flat ground at the same perceived level of effort.
On the mental side, there are a couple of tricks that you can use when running uphill. First, don't run the whole uphill in one piece, run segments of it. Select a spot 20 yards ahead of you and run to it. Then pick another spot and run to it. Keep repeating your "20 yard hills" and you will get to the top easier than tackling a long hill in its entirety, which can be intimidating. When you can see the crest of the hill before you, push over the top and don't let up, because it is about to get easier.
Another mental trick is to imagine a rope going up the hill ahead of you. Picture yourself grasping the rope with your hands and pulling yourself up the hill.
If you master proper techniques of hill running, you should be able to handle them without any significant increase of injury risk. For 6 years, I did most of my training on one and two mile loops in a park that had a very challenging hill. One third of every loop was uphill, one third downhill and one third flat. The constant hill running didn't cause me to incur any injuries, but it sure made me a stronger, faster runner....and a better hill runner. Hill running is currently a missing element from my training, since I now train on a trail in Maryland half the year and a beach in Florida the other half....both are mostly flat.
Hope some of this helps. Good luck with your program!
Jim2
Hill running techniques fall into two categories.....physical and mental.
On the physical side, the key things are a forward lean, stride adjustments, use of your arms, footstrike and maintaining a steady level of perceived effort.
It's important to lean forward, not backward, when running both uphill and downhill....lean into the hill when running uphill and away from it when running downhill. Leaning forward does not mean bending forward at the waist, which is a natural reaction to running uphill. Bending at the waist has two negative consequences which will make your task much tougher. It pushes your hips and buttocks back to compensate for the forward lean of your upper body in order to maintain your center of gravity over your feet. That distorts running form and reduces running economy. It also compresses your lungs slightly and restricts their ability to expand, which reduces your air intake.....just what you don't need when running. And, it doesn't take much of a bend. Experiment with bending forward while running comfortably on level ground and you will be able to detect the effect on lung expansion.
A proper forward lean is done at the ankle while keeping the body "erect" with head, torso, hips, and feet aligned. Thus, when going uphill, your body should not be perpendicular to the surface you are running on, but should remain vertical with your center of gravity still over your leading foot.
When going downhill, the tendency is to "hold back" to control your pace by leaning back at the ankles to remain vertical. That's a mistake. It causes your foot strike to move ahead of your center of gravity and results in a braking action and jambs your feet to the front of your shoes. It also results in a hard heel strike. Run downhill as if you were running on level ground. Stay perpendicular to the surface you are running on, which will require a forward lean relative to the vertical, and let the force of gravity work for you. Don't worry. No matter how steep the hill, your legs will keep up and keep you from falling forward. It's called "falling down the hill", or "throwing yourself down the hill." I call it a free ride. Control downhill speed with the combination of forward lean and stride length.
My points of focus to maintain proper posture over a hill are my hips and chest. I concentrate on pressing them forward into the hill when going uphill and away from the hill when going downhill, which prevents bending at the waist, ensures a forward lean and maintains an erect body.
When running uphill, increase stride rate and shorten your stride slightly, which will keep your center of gravity over or slightly ahead of your lead foot, and lift your knees a little more than usual on the flats. Also, increase your arm swing slightly. Driving the arms a little harder will help to overcome the pull of gravity.
When running downhill, lengthen your stride a little and pay attention to your footstrike. Avoid hard heel strikes, which indicates that you are leaning back and overstriding with your knees too straight or locked and a lot of shock transmitted to your legs, knees, and hips. Try to land midfoot or forefoot with your knees flexed. A gentle heel strike followed by a quick roll onto the forefoot is OK if "forcing" a midfoot landing isn't comfortable. Unlike running uphill, an exaggerated arm swing is counter-productive when running downhill. Gravity provides the power going downhill. The arms are used mostly to maintain balance and rhythm.
The main thing to do to prevent injury and trashing quads when running hills is to minimize the pounding of downhill running by leaning forward and avoiding hard heel strikes.
Maintain a steady level of perceived effort, not pace, over hills. Keep the effort the same as if you were running on level ground. Thus, your pace will be slower when going uphill and faster going downhill than running on flat ground at the same perceived level of effort.
On the mental side, there are a couple of tricks that you can use when running uphill. First, don't run the whole uphill in one piece, run segments of it. Select a spot 20 yards ahead of you and run to it. Then pick another spot and run to it. Keep repeating your "20 yard hills" and you will get to the top easier than tackling a long hill in its entirety, which can be intimidating. When you can see the crest of the hill before you, push over the top and don't let up, because it is about to get easier.
Another mental trick is to imagine a rope going up the hill ahead of you. Picture yourself grasping the rope with your hands and pulling yourself up the hill.
If you master proper techniques of hill running, you should be able to handle them without any significant increase of injury risk. For 6 years, I did most of my training on one and two mile loops in a park that had a very challenging hill. One third of every loop was uphill, one third downhill and one third flat. The constant hill running didn't cause me to incur any injuries, but it sure made me a stronger, faster runner....and a better hill runner. Hill running is currently a missing element from my training, since I now train on a trail in Maryland half the year and a beach in Florida the other half....both are mostly flat.
Hope some of this helps. Good luck with your program!
Jim2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)