short or long strides???

Yes

This is something I have been working on and for me a shorter stride has improved my form and my times.

Yep, Aikidoman touched on it. The "pros" say that we shouldn't try to run faster by taking bigger steps, but we should try to not have our feet on the ground as long. So that's what I focus on (faster turn-over).

Sorry to state the obvious, but 'shorter than what?'  If you mean 'shorter than too long' then yes....

If shortening your stride made you faster, then your cadence went higher, and I suspect that this could be part of the story.  And if you were also overstriding, then yes shortening is a good thing.

But there's a limit to how far you can go with getting faster by increasing cadence.  Once your cadence is at a certain point, the ONLY way to get faster is to have a longer stride, and having a long stride is not in an of itself a bad thing.  On the contrary.  There is an important distinction between 'overstriding' and 'having a long stride'.  The latter without the former makes you faster.  The former makes you hurt.

As long as you don't over stride, that is landing ahead of your center of gravity (heaps) stride lenght is more a function of speed. That is the faster you go the cadence/stride lenght tend to increase and it will decrease when you go slower.

There is no one size fits all and running economy is a function of many factors (stride lenght just one out of a bunch) hence IMO as long as you are running around around the desired intensity go with what 'feels' best for you.

There is no right answer other than "don't overstride" which is landing with your foot in front of your body's center of gravity.

If you feel better with a shorter stride, then keep doing it!

My old boss was a 2:55 marathoner but his turnover is crazy slow compared to most and his stride length is really long.  Just what worked for him.

The key is the right stride length, posture, and where your foot is striking in relation to your body.

Speaking of my own progression, I first made progress by shortening my stride.  That meant my foot was landing under my body, rather than in front of it.  And that made a big difference.  But recently, I've corrected my posture.  Now that I'm totally upright, I have a _longer stride_ with my foot still landing under my body.  That also made a big difference. 

I've progressed from running 12min/mi to now getting down to 8min/mi (and 6:30min/mi for short stretches).

Shorter strides sound like a positive change for you right now.  Stick with it.  But focus on improving your posture and having your foot land under your body.   If later on, you feel comfortable re-lengthening your stride, that's okay too.

2 cents.

Edited by mrcurtain 2009-10-08 4:53 PM

As touched on above, its about getting the right posture. You reduce a lot of the impact on your joints by (normally shortening your stride) letting your feet hit the ground when they are below your hips.I feel like it also helped me to stop running on my heels so much and start moving the weight towards the middle and forefoot.

Here is a cycling analogy to this question:

what is better 650 or 700 or 29" tires?

the length of the stride (or the size of the tire) does not matter as much as the cadence (it matters a tiny bit).   Most people are able to maintain a higher number of strides/min (cadence) with shorter strides, and this is a big plus.  The other big plus of shorter strides is that they put way less stress on your body than longer strides (in the above analogy, it is true that a 650 tire stresses a bike frame less than a 29 inch tire - but most people would not care about what their bike frames can take vs. what their bodies can take - unless they are riding aluminum on bumpy roads and weight north of 200 lbs).

short fast strikes are good

waddle on (unless you are running a 400m or less race, which is another story)

P.S. You might want to take a look at "Galloway's Book on Running".

The section on "running form" is very good and useful.

I definitely noticed that shortening my stride and indreasing my cadence helped me increase my distances more comfortably over the summer. Up until recently, I've had a tendency to over-stride which I attribute to growing up playing sprint-focused sports. The shorter stride has definitely led to a better landing position under my center of gravity.

YES!! I shortened my stride, and increased my cadence to 90, same as bike. Started running faster, easier, and coming off the bike to run much easier!

I know a lot of the work in running is your center of gravity moving up and down.  I'm wondering if a faster stride ends up with a more level gait.

Actually to be efficient, you want to keep your center of gravity as constant as possible.  A constantly moving and unstable center of gravity not only makes you do more effort but can cause injury/soreness.

Here's winning running form.  Craig Alexander today.



He's got a relatively long stride. But his posture is the important thing.   Look how _totally_ upright he is. 

Not to beat a dead horse here, but as others have said, if your longer stide meant that you were landing with your foot way out in front of your body, and shortening your stride means that you brought your foot fall more directly underneath your body, then shortening your stride will most likely make you faster. If you are overstriding, and landing with your foot way out in front, it's like your putting on the brakes a bit with each stride. If your landing with your feet beneath you, you continue that forward momentum.

Side question here. 

I've only had one cup of coffee, but thinking about it it seems that the cause of a heel strike (very common and bad) is improper posture and leaning forward.  Look at Craig Alexander's form. With perfect posture, is it even possible to overrstride and heel strike?  Or if you're totally upright, will your foot naturally land properly?   

The very best in the world seem to land with their foot just a bit in front of them; with excellent posture.  Though Gebreselassie isn't quite as upright as Alexander.

Haile Gebreselassie:

I think it is possible to overstride even if you are upright.  I agree that it feels a little unnatural -- I have to 'throw' my leg way out front to achieve it, but I imagine that for some, it feels very natural.

I don't think you can conclude anything from this picture.  At the speeds these guys are moving it is virtually impossible to tell where the foot-strike is relative to their c.o.g. without a very high-resolution video.  (Actually, I think the same is true of us normal folk as well.)

Another point:  whether or not one is 'braking' when overstriding actually depends on the direction of applied force at the moment of impact (strike).  When running long distance, I believe that most people will NOT be applying force backwards (from front to back) when the foot is out in front, and THAT is (at least one reason) why overstriding is bad.  (The act of applying front-to-back force with the foot out has been called, aptly enough, 'clawing at the ground'.)

A final point: the guys in your picture are certainly not 'most people' and I think we should be very wary of inferring from what people who can maintain just over 4:30/mile for long periods do to what you and I should do.  It is far from clear to me that they are just 'doing what we do, only faster'.

Chi running rocks...bring up that cadence...I ran an effortless 8 m/m in the middle of my long run today (accidently), and pissed off my regular running partner, just by picking up my cadence.

Actually, if you will be racing against me this season, go for the longest, slowest stride you can.  Thank you!

Some days I just don't know why I even bother to post .................

Hey, I read all your posts.  Keep them up.