|
Jun 2019
11:03am, 18 Jun 2019
443 posts
|
SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss)
True stride length is how far you COM has travelled upon foot landing, NOT how far in front of you you swing your leg. Artificially creating, what appears like a longer stride, by swinging your leg out in front just creates an over stride, which we all know puts the breaks on. Don't be fooled
|
|
Jun 2019
11:10am, 18 Jun 2019
31,808 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Yeah, I don't understand what you mean by "true stride length". But it doesn't really matter (to me!) Others may be interested.
What I'm calling stride length (just distance between foot falls), even if you are landing close to under body, can be longer just because you are pushing harder. You'll also have more vertical height gain, which isn't efficient, but if you're sprinting hard at the end or pushing harder, then that's less of an issue that in a 20 mile run.  G
|
|
Jun 2019
11:13am, 18 Jun 2019
28,062 posts
|
SPR
But it makes no practical difference in actually calculating stride length does it?
If COM is miles back at start of stride, it will be miles back at the end hence the measurements will be exactly the same.
Might make a difference to efficiency but that's a different question.
|
|
Jun 2019
11:14am, 18 Jun 2019
7,834 posts
|
larkim
Surely if you've cover X miles in Y time with your foot hitting the ground on Z occurences, your stride length is a straight forward function of X and Z and your cadence is a straightforward function of Y and Z? No matter where you measure stride length from.
|
|
Jun 2019
11:24am, 18 Jun 2019
67,174 posts
|
Gobi
Oh my the memories and why I dont come in here.
|
|
Jun 2019
11:33am, 18 Jun 2019
43,045 posts
|
GlennR
~like~^^^
|
|
Jun 2019
11:35am, 18 Jun 2019
2,098 posts
|
J2R
I don't know why there is even a question about whether taller people (or, more accurately, people with longer legs, which is normally the same thing but not always) would have slower cadences. It seems obvious that they would. A giraffe and a hare both run at the same high speed, around 60 km/h, but the hare has a much faster cadence. The 180 per minute thing is only an average - it will vary according to leg length.
|
|
Jun 2019
12:56pm, 18 Jun 2019
8,069 posts
|
simbil
speed = cadence x stride length
You can go faster by increasing cadence and/or stride length.
For stride length alone to increase speed, think springboks - fast speed made up of huge bounds so a very low cadence.
People aren't usually springboks, we need to work largely with cadence or be tough enough to endure the increased ground forces from an increased stride length.
Increasing stride length becomes inevitable when cadence tops out sprinting but efficiency is otherwise a trade off between cost of re-positioning limbs vs cost of getting airborne as the amount you are airborne is a factor in stride length.
I think this, like most things, was covered in depth on Canute's blogs
|
|
Jun 2019
1:00pm, 18 Jun 2019
31,813 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Which is exactly one of the reasons that for longer, slower running, it is better to have short stride but maintain high cadence, because your amount of air (which is a complete waste of energy and increases impact forces) is greater when pushing harder getting that longer stride, than if you pitter patter along with shorter stride, higher cadence. Doesn't matter when you're sprinting for 10s to a few mins, but over hours of long running matters very much indeed. G
|
|
Jun 2019
1:05pm, 18 Jun 2019
28,065 posts
|
SPR
Most people that have lower cadence are actually spending more time absorbing landing forces. If quick cadence was so much easier, everyone would naturally do it.
|
