General Discussion Triathlon Talk » short or long strides??? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2009-10-11 8:41 PM
in reply to: #2454074

User image

Champion
6503
50001000500
NOVA - Ironic for an Endurance Athlete
Subject: RE: short or long strides???
Daremo - 2009-10-11 5:32 PM Some days I just don't know why I even bother to post .................


You have great posts!


2009-10-12 6:44 AM
in reply to: #2453998

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: short or long strides???

mrcurtain - 2009-10-11 4:59 PM

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? 

Heel striking is NOT, say again NOT, bad.  It is very common, even among elite marathon runners.  All it means is that the heel is the first part of the foot to touch the ground.

Overstriding is bad.  When the foot lands out in front of the center of gravity, you can create a braking force and increased shock to your legs.  Those two conditions are not ideal.

There is no such thing as perfect posture for running.  Everyone runs somewhat differently than everyone else, due to biomechanics, fitness, training, etc.  in fact, your "perfect posture" will change over time, so what used to work for you may not be the same as it is now.

It is almost impossible to know ahead of time what our best form is.  The only way to find is to, quite simply, run a lot.  You more you run, the more you body will find its natural rhythm.

You can do drills to strengthen the muscles you need, and to help you find your form.  There are some general things that have been recognized as less desirable, such as overstriding.  BUt most people learn to avoid those problems by....running more.

2009-10-12 6:57 AM
in reply to: #2449826

User image

Extreme Veteran
417
100100100100
Subject: RE: short or long strides???
jford2309 - 2009-10-08 12:31 PM

 

So I am curious, is a shorter stride better for most people? 



Almost always.  People watch the elite racers and think they should have long strides.  That lends itself to injury and fatigue.  I ran the Chicago maraton and watched a 4'10" lady pass me keeping her stride under control and her shoulders back. 
2009-10-12 7:05 AM
in reply to: #2454540

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: short or long strides???

krisko - 2009-10-12 7:57 AM
jford2309 - 2009-10-08 12:31 PM

 

So I am curious, is a shorter stride better for most people? 



Almost always.  People watch the elite racers and think they should have long strides.  That lends itself to injury and fatigue.  I ran the Chicago maraton and watched a 4'10" lady pass me keeping her stride under control and her shoulders back. 

Questions:

What is a "shorter stride"?  What is a "longer stride"?

How do we know when a longer stride is better?  Just elites?  What constitutes an elite?

How do you know that woman had a "shorter stride"?  Is it possible she passed you because she had better fitness, was more relaxed and controlled than you?

2009-10-12 7:39 AM
in reply to: #2453998

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: short or long strides???
mrcurtain - 2009-10-11 3:59 PM
jsnowash -  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.


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:

Gebreselassie running form


1. Haile is not overstriding. In the pic he hasn't even landed...

If we were to analyze the running stride of most elite runnes or triathletes with slow speed cameras you would notice none of them over-stride. Heel strike? sure! many do because against popular belief of what some might want to sell you, heel striking is not a bad thing.
2009-10-12 8:06 AM
in reply to: #2449826

User image

Cycling Guru
15134
50005000500010025
Fulton, MD
Subject: RE: short or long strides???

I'll use the same example I always do, but just straight to the numbers.

A 5 minute miler running 180 per minute (90 strides per leg) takes 900 steps per mile at a length of 5.87 feet per stride.

An 8 minute miler running 180 per minute takes 1440 steps per mile at a length of 3.67 feet per stride.

So someone please explain for the dumb kids in the class why it is you need a shorter stride???  And why you need a higher turnover??  Because it seems to me like the people with the longer stride spend less time on the ground.

Why you ask??

BECAUSE YOUR PACE IS WHAT SHOULD DICTATE YOUR STRIDE LENGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So I'll ask all the arm chair quarterbacks this: Why do you want a shorter stride again?  And why do you want a faster turnover?  And why in the hell are you trying to mimic someone who can be as much as twice as fast as you and think that that technique is what you need to do???



Edited by Daremo 2009-10-12 8:09 AM


2009-10-12 9:53 AM
in reply to: #2449826

User image

Pro
5761
50005001001002525
Bartlett, TN
Subject: RE: short or long strides???

Wow, since I started this thread, I have really being looking and watching my stride, trying to figure out what is best for me. My thinking used to be that I could take a longer stride with a slower turnover, but maintain a faster speed. But recently, after the info from this thread and while I was running pushing my 9 month old son in his jogging stroller, I discovered that I actualy feel better and can maintain a faster pace by shortening my stride and having a higher turnover. I do not get as fatigued with a quicker turnover like I thought I would either.

I also never really paid attention to wear my feet were landing when I ran, but with a short stride it seems to me that they are landing more under my hips than before and that has really helped my soreness and leg fatigue!

Who knew that after 30+years of running, I was doing it wrong? (or there was a better way for me to run?) Thanks for all the info guys!

 

ETA because when I type I look ignorant with my spelling



Edited by jford2309 2009-10-12 9:56 AM
2009-10-12 10:11 AM
in reply to: #2449826

User image

Expert
1087
1000252525
Portland
Subject: RE: short or long strides???
I've been a sprinting athlete my entire life, between track and soccer, and always thought that longer more powerful strides would be better.  But just today i shortened my stride on my run this morning and cut 20 seconds off my pace (and now the dog hates me for pushing her harder)!  it was an awkward feeling at first, but I now understand I was overstriding, my knees feel better then ever before!  If you have had problems with your running being uncomfortable, I would suggest playing with your stride!
2009-10-12 10:23 AM
in reply to: #2449826

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: short or long strides???

So...what do most people feel is the take-away from this conversation?

2009-10-12 10:29 AM
in reply to: #2454900

User image

Pro
5761
50005001001002525
Bartlett, TN
Subject: RE: short or long strides???

Scout7 - 2009-10-12 10:23 AM

So...what do most people feel is the take-away from this conversation?

 

For me, it was to be observant of where your feet are landing when you run. Also I learned that sometimes a hgher turnover is easier to maintain, and also that a longer stride does not necessarily mean a faster pace for me!

2009-10-12 10:47 AM
in reply to: #2454900

User image

Pro
4353
200020001001001002525
Wallingford, PA
Subject: RE: short or long strides???
Scout7 - 2009-10-12 11:23 AM

So...what do most people feel is the take-away from this conversation?



1. Overstriding is bad.

2. All the rest - stride length, turn over, foot fall, is different for everyone. There is no "perfect" one-size-fits-all running form.

3. Run lots, and the form that works best for you will evolve.


2009-10-12 2:23 PM
in reply to: #2454577

User image

Veteran
812
500100100100
Subject: RE: short or long strides???
JorgeM - 2009-10-12 5:39 AM
mrcurtain -
1. Haile is not overstriding. In the pic he hasn't even landed...


I wasn't saying that he was overstriding.  Not at all.

I just used it as an example of the best in the world having a relatively long stride; or at least not a short one.
2009-10-12 2:30 PM
in reply to: #2454607

User image

Veteran
812
500100100100
Subject: RE: short or long strides???
Daremo - So someone please explain for the dumb kids in the class why it is you need a shorter stride???  And why you need a higher turnover??  Because it seems to me like the people with the longer stride spend less time on the ground.


Here's the contrary view.

The less time that you spend on the ground, the harder you fall when you land.

Shorter strides means less vertical movement, less impact, and overall more efficient running.

But there's limits to it.  Once you're reached your maximum running cadence, the only way to go faster is to increase your stride length.

So, it quite possible that it's optimal for those who are running 8+ min/mi to have a high cadence and a short stride length.  Then, as the speed gets down to 6 min/mi or less to keep the high cadence, but start increasing the stride length.

2 cents. 
2009-10-12 2:44 PM
in reply to: #2455583

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: short or long strides???

mrcurtain - 2009-10-12 3:30 PM

Here's the contrary view.

The less time that you spend on the ground, the harder you fall when you land.

Shorter strides means less vertical movement, less impact, and overall more efficient running.
 

Not being critical, but why?  Why does less time on the ground necessarily mean a harder landing?  Why do shorter strides mean less vertical movement?  Is a shorter stride always equal to less vertical movement?  Or is that really the key (less up and down motion)?

2009-10-12 2:45 PM
in reply to: #2454900

User image

Master
2380
2000100100100252525
Beijing
Subject: RE: short or long strides???
Scout7 - 2009-10-11 11:23 AM

So...what do most people feel is the take-away from this conversation?



Keep your:

1.  Head Down.
2. Mouth Shut.


also, run more.  :^)
2009-10-12 3:06 PM
in reply to: #2455583

User image

Cycling Guru
15134
50005000500010025
Fulton, MD
Subject: RE: short or long strides???
mrcurtain - 2009-10-12 3:30 PM
Daremo - So someone please explain for the dumb kids in the class why it is you need a shorter stride???  And why you need a higher turnover??  Because it seems to me like the people with the longer stride spend less time on the ground.


Here's the contrary view.

The less time that you spend on the ground, the harder you fall when you land.

Shorter strides means less vertical movement, less impact, and overall more efficient running.

But there's limits to it.  Once you're reached your maximum running cadence, the only way to go faster is to increase your stride length.

So, it quite possible that it's optimal for those who are running 8+ min/mi to have a high cadence and a short stride length.  Then, as the speed gets down to 6 min/mi or less to keep the high cadence, but start increasing the stride length.

2 cents. 


See my example before.  You gonna tell me that the person who hits the ground 500 more times a mile is lighter on their feet and puts less stress on their body than the person who is faster and has a longer stride??

Your speed cannot get down to 6 minutes per mile without having a longer stride length, because (here we go again), YOUR PACE IS INDICATIVE OF YOUR STRIDE LENGTH.  The variations in cadence are minimal.  If someone runs at 160 vs. 180 running 6 minutes their stride lengths are only varried by about 9" or so.

There is not really a "contrary" view to me.  There is simply an incorrect one ............


2009-10-12 5:38 PM
in reply to: #2455583

User image

Champion
7595
50002000500252525
Columbia, South Carolina
Subject: RE: short or long strides???
mrcurtain - 2009-10-12 3:30 PM
Daremo - So someone please explain for the dumb kids in the class why it is you need a shorter stride???  And why you need a higher turnover??  Because it seems to me like the people with the longer stride spend less time on the ground.


Here's the contrary view.

The less time that you spend on the ground, the harder you fall when you land.

Shorter strides means less vertical movement, less impact, and overall more efficient running.

...


There are actually people who study this stuff. For real.  It turns out that (at least according to the best science out there at the moment) these statements are false.

On the other hand, I don't think that we need a lot of science here.  The reason that these statement are false is pretty clear -- how 'hard you hit' (this notion gets cashed out in the literature in various ways, for example (and this is just an example) in terms of peak vertical force after impact and prior to the support phase) is largely a function of how high your center of gravity was at its peak, which is a function of the vertical component of the push-off force.  Your stride length is largely a function of the horizontal component of that same force.  One can increase the horizontal component without increasing the vertical component.  This is, in fact, something that 'smooth' (non-bouncing) runners do well.

Now, it is true that if (for given initial values of horizontal and vertical components of the force) you cannot increase the horizontal component without also increasing the vertical component (which according to studies that I've read can happen if you lack flexibility in certain areas, especially calves), then you are going to 'sacrifice' some additional vertical travel (and thus, potentially, some higher peak impact forces) if you increase your stride length by increasing the horizontal force (and thus, under the scenario we are considering, the vertical force).  However, whether this is an overall bad thing is far from clear.  One thing is clear:  for a fixed cadence, you will be going faster.  That is a good thing.  So whether your higher vertical travel per stride (hence potentially higher impact forces) is bad depends on whether it makes it sufficiently harder to maintain that pace.  It is far from clear what the answer to that question is, because while the impact forces are higher, the number of impacts per mile is lower.  (This is what Rick has pointed out, among other things.)  And, as I say, people really do study these things (relationship between stuff like horizontal and vertical forces and running economy).  Google Scholar is your friend here, if you want to find the studies.  (For example, this doctoral dissertation is quite interesting on the bio-mechanical factors that predict running economy.  But it is just one of a kajillion such studies.)

On the other hand, as many have said:  Just run at the proper pace and probably the other stuff will eventually take care of itself.


2009-10-12 6:01 PM
in reply to: #2455623

User image

Veteran
812
500100100100
Subject: RE: short or long strides???
Scout7 -Why does less time on the ground necessarily mean a harder landing?


Just try it.  Let me use Daremo's numbers for sample stride lengths.  Jump forward 3.5 feet and see what the landing feels like, and then jump forward 5.5 feet and see what the landing feels like.

Why do shorter strides mean less vertical movement?  Or is that really the key (less up and down motion)?


I think it's pretty simple.  You're fighting gravity.  If you want to stay in the air longer, you've got to go higher. 

And yes, that's the key. 

Less vertical motion means more efficiency and less impact on the body. 

Though, there are limits.  Once you reached the point where you can turn your legs over no faster,  then you've got to increase your stride length to go faster.
2009-10-12 7:10 PM
in reply to: #2455976

User image

Cycling Guru
15134
50005000500010025
Fulton, MD
Subject: RE: short or long strides???

No.

Tie it into Scouts claim about power.  If you apply a high force vector in this direction with minimal vertical -------> you get very little bounce and long stride.

Know how a kangaroo's body works?  The longer the stride, the less work they have to do because of the contractile abilities of the muscles.  Turns into a pogo stick action.  Apply less force and get more spring out of the muscle because momentum and such carry you forward.  While the human body is different of course, the principles of contractile muscle reactions remain the same.

Again, 1400 times a mile or 900 times a mile.  Tell me which one is going to put less abuse on the runner .......... and the ability to take those fewer steps per mile (at the same turnover) is dictated by the runner's pace.

2009-10-12 9:37 PM
in reply to: #2455976

User image

Champion
7595
50002000500252525
Columbia, South Carolina
Subject: RE: short or long strides???
mrcurtain - 2009-10-12 7:01 PM
Scout7 -Why does less time on the ground necessarily mean a harder landing?


Just try it.  Let me use Daremo's numbers for sample stride lengths.  Jump forward 3.5 feet and see what the landing feels like, and then jump forward 5.5 feet and see what the landing feels like.

Why do shorter strides mean less vertical movement?  Or is that really the key (less up and down motion)?


I think it's pretty simple.  You're fighting gravity.  If you want to stay in the air longer, you've got to go higher. 

And yes, that's the key. 

Less vertical motion means more efficiency and less impact on the body. 

Though, there are limits.  Once you reached the point where you can turn your legs over no faster,  then you've got to increase your stride length to go faster.


I realize that my post was a little long, but it explains in detail why this claim is wrong (and why, even if it happened to be right, it wouldn't necessarily follow that longer stride is less efficient anyway).

(My explanation is ultimately the long-winded version of what Scout and Rick are saying; I added the detail because their explanations didn't seem to be working for you.)

ETA:  Ugh.  That was my 1000th post.  I was supposed to save that for something interesting, right?  Oh well...


Edited by Experior 2009-10-12 9:38 PM
2009-10-12 9:38 PM
in reply to: #2456082

User image

Veteran
812
500100100100
Subject: RE: short or long strides???
Experior -- One can increase the horizontal component without increasing the vertical component.


Okay.  But that's something very different than Daremo's statements about spending more time in the air.

It's simple physics that if you spend time in the air between foot strikes, then you went vertically higher.  Gravity.

On all of the rest, I'll defer to your judgment.

Darimo -- Again, 1400 times a mile or 900 times a mile.  Tell me which one is going to put less abuse on the runner ..........


Yet again, it depends on how much force you're putting into the landing.  I'd take 1400 light landings, over 900 hard landings any day of the week.

Would you also tell us that walking is harder on your body than running, because there are more foot falls? 

Or to take it to the other extreme, if canon threw you for a mile, you would only have 1 landing, but you'd break every bone in your body. 

YOUR PACE IS INDICATIVE OF YOUR STRIDE LENGTH


I agree.

If someone is running 6min/mi, then they need a long stride.

But most people around here, with relatively slow paces, are probably better served with a high cadence and relatively short stride.

2 cents.


2009-10-12 9:43 PM
in reply to: #2456299

User image

Champion
7595
50002000500252525
Columbia, South Carolina
Subject: RE: short or long strides???
nm

Edited by Experior 2009-10-12 9:49 PM
2009-10-13 7:05 AM
in reply to: #2456299

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: short or long strides???

mrcurtain - 2009-10-12 10:38 PM

If someone is running 6min/mi, then they need a long stride.

But most people around here, with relatively slow paces, are probably better served with a high cadence and relatively short stride.

2 cents.

On this point is really where we disagree.  In my opinion, you cannot make that statement.  No one here can say that anyone is better served with a high cadence and relatively short stride, never mind the fact that no one has defined "High cadence", "slow paces", "short stride", and what the stride and pace are relative to.

That's my real point of contention.  We cannot claim that people "are probably better served" by anything, especially when it comes to biomechanics.  We can suggest they experiment to see what works for them, but that's the extent.

2009-10-13 7:43 AM
in reply to: #2456518

User image

Champion
8540
50002000100050025
the colony texas
Subject: RE: short or long strides???
Scout7 - 2009-10-13 7:05 AM

mrcurtain - 2009-10-12 10:38 PM

If someone is running 6min/mi, then they need a long stride
.



2 cents.

On this point is really where we disagree.  In my opinion, you cannot make that statement.  No one here can say that anyone is better served with a high cadence and relatively short stride, never mind the fact that no one has defined "High cadence", "slow paces", "short stride", and what the stride and pace are relative to.

That's my real point of contention.  We cannot claim that people "are probably better served" by anything, especially when it comes to biomechanics.  We can suggest they experiment to see what works for them, but that's the extent.



exactly ^^
until what a long stride, short stride, high cadence, low cadence  is actually defined you really can't claim one way is better, then you have to go and define what each of the above is for each particular person.

why  I bolded the above is for this question just to think about.  Is that 6 min/mile person needed the long stride to slow down since that is a recovery run for that particular person? Or to speed up since that is a fast pace for him/her.  What is long and fast for one person is short and slow for another
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » short or long strides??? Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2