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
Thursday, July 23, 1998
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)