More efficient running style

183 watchers

SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss) Mar 2018 10:25pm, 19 Mar 2018 331 posts	0 SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss) Good post Canute. Pose is often misunderstood as being a new style or some kind of reinvention of running or even just about running on your toes. It's not, it's simply a system or method by which to teach efficient running, which is the end game we're all after, whichever way we choose to get there. And that usually means cutting out over striding by not not reaching forward with your leg and having an aligned/stable posture. Good chat guys.
GlennR Mar 2018 10:36pm, 19 Mar 2018 34,426 posts	0 GlennR SSLHP, I think that is where Fenners, Canute and I got to back on page 64.
GlennR Mar 2018 10:37pm, 19 Mar 2018 34,427 posts	0 GlennR Doing a quick calculation, between the three of us we’re 180 years old.
Canute Mar 2018 10:40pm, 19 Mar 2018 1,837 posts	0 Canute SSLHP I agree that we need to avoid over-striding. Not only is the impact more stressful when reaching forwards but the braking force is larger, and requires a greater push in late stance to overcome it. I also agree with the importance of good posture, especially the orientation of the pelvis and hips so that the glutes can work with optimal efficiency in late stance. The illustration that you linked to, shows a good position of the pelvis.
Chrisull Mar 2018 10:49pm, 19 Mar 2018 12,413 posts	0 Chrisull So some interesting side points from Canute there, one particular as to why some people get injured and others don't. I (fingers crossed, touch wood etc etc) don't get injured - see my running mileage on fetch, this is my 10th year where every month is over 100 miles and is looking like I could manage 5 years of 2000 miles in a row. Yet my running style is ugly as hell, "painful to watch", "flailing". I'm not fast or genetically gifted. So what gives? I used to play football and I was always picking up niggles, abdominal ones mainly. So it's not like I was injury free. In fact I gave up football as I was spending too much time with niggles. So why is running different... the one thing I have different. No running between teenage years and 33. Then I spent 4 years doing 1 or 2 mile runs, 9 minute pace was as good as it got, it was all I could do, but I built it up so slowly (didn't have time, had young children). I didn't race until 4 years after I started running. Didn't do any speedwork until 3 years into it. I didn't go above 10 miles until 5 years after I started running. While anecedotal evidence is useless, I've always wondered if that gradual build up has help sustain me.
SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss) Mar 2018 9:13am, 20 Mar 2018 332 posts	0 SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss) One of the main cause of over striding comes from one's belief that a longer stride -as in, a bigger distance between our feet (ROM) means faster pace, so they instinctively reach forward with their leg in an attempt to 'bit off' more of the path in front of them Wrong thoughts lead to wrong actions. The saying: Stride length+cadence=speed is popular, but not correct! True stride length is the distance our CoM travels between each foot land. And stride length comes from speed, not the other way around. So, it should be: angle of rotation (fall)+cadence =speed...=stride length. The key is to do drill that get runners to pull their foot towards the hip instead of reaching forward, pendulum style. All the feet are doing are changing support -exactly the same as running in place. The other main cause is keeping their support foot on the ground too long, either by pushing(!) or being concerned about establishing a land with their other foot first -the longer the support foot stays on the ground the more their airborne leg will reach forward. 95% of runners in my club and runners I teach Pose to have an excessive over stride -even the one's much faster than me!
HappyG(rrr) Mar 2018 9:58am, 20 Mar 2018 28,475 posts	0 HappyG(rrr) But to address Chris's point SSLHP, what is your view on changing or even examining running form, for runners who do decent mileage AND are not suffering injury? If it ain't broke, don't fix it? OR, do you think that they've just been lucky and injury is bound to happen and addressing form and correcting where necessary, is always beneficial? Does improving form along bring performance benefits? Or does it just allow longer, harder training with reduced injury risk, but the performance enhancement can only come with more and/or harder training? And final question (and maybe Canute or others may also have an answer for this) do you think non-running training is beneficial or even essential to aid running improvement and to minimise injury risk? I'm thinking combinations of cross training (for additional aerobic training without additional running impact), strength work (to strengthen those muscles being eccentrically strained during the running phases) and stretching, massage (or alternatively foam rolling) or other rehabilitation to aid recovery or reduce damage? Just a few Qs! G
SPR Mar 2018 10:25am, 20 Mar 2018 25,697 posts	0 SPR Stride length (which equals the distance COM travels between foot falls) X Cadence = Speed is still correct, though I agree they are generally effects, not causes. In the example of the runner reaching out and overstriding, cadence will be lower than if they didn't reach out so no increase in speed is achieved.
SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss) Mar 2018 11:51am, 20 Mar 2018 333 posts	0 SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss) HappyG. My personal view is that running form can cause and reduce the occurrence of injury, but it's not the only thing. Muscle imbalances, weaknesses, overtraining etc can have an affect. For example, I believe I have decent running form, but I do have my fair share of calf injuries, pretty much always on my right calf. It's no coincidence that I have a completely ruptured ACL in the knee joint and have had for 20 years. I can still run OK but it means my knee is always unstable, which in turn makes my calf muscles work a bit harder to stabilize -it's always going to be vulnerable. I never promise any runner that running more efficiently will eliminate injury risk. However, if they have knee problems and they're clearly over striding with a big heel strike, then I think I could say better technique will almost definitely sort that out (but warn them that the load will shift from knees to calf/achilles, so expect some soreness whilst they adjust) Better technique definitely brings better performance -it's about working better with gravity rather than against it -for example, the more you over stride, the more you're working against gravity -it's pulling you backwards, so more time and effort is spent getting your hips over your support foot before you can begin your next stride. I do think non-running training is beneficial to running, but only if it relates to running. For example the plank -the only thing good about doing the plank is...doing the plank because it's strengthening your core in neutral spine and whilst on 4 support points. So, what's the point when 1, you're only on 1 point of support when running and 2, in any movement you are never IN neutral spine -you only ever fleetingly pass through it. I believe what some experts say that you should strengthen movements that mimic running. Check out this guy's blog mile27.com.au
larkim Mar 2018 12:19pm, 20 Mar 2018 4,191 posts	0 larkim Surely you have no speed until you've strode at a given frequency so its nonsensical to say that stride length comes from speed. Though it is perhaps a little chicken and egg. And the basic maths tells you that 90 strides per minute covering 1.25m each stride will have you covering 112.5m in 1 minute resulting in speed of 14.3mph. Irrespective of whether you are measuring the COM movement per footfall (which is exactly the same as stride length), you have no speed until you have forward motion. So cadence x stride length very definitely = speed, but as with any mathmatical formula of that type, you can derive stride length from speed over cadence too if you want to.