Can we try the Running Economy thread again?

bump

Can we please have no posts from JHuffman?

He's probably gonna post on here now because I posted this, but I don't really care.

I've been working on my form for over 2 years now, trying to increase my cadence, trying to land correctly, lean forward a little more, eliminate cross motion in my arms, etc. It has all helped greatly.

My opinion is that whatever your basic style of running is, you'll naturally improve your economy by the addition of more miles — after all, your body is an adaptive organism — but it will only be within the parameters of the style you learned. If that style or mode of running is flawed, no amount of running will overhaul it; you need something more drastic. But that kind of change doesn't come quickly or easily, and most people don't believe it's worth it to retool. But it's worth every bit of attention you give it. It won't substitute for hard work and smart training, but all other factors being equal, the runner with better economy will come out ahead of the one with poor economy. This is just common sense.

After 2+ years of work on form i'm faster, less injury prone, and enjoy running more. If you run faster, you're more encouraged. If you're less injury prone, you get more consistent training and become more fit. If you enjoy it more, you'll likely do it more. All these things work synergistically.

I also think that the earlier you can begin the better, but it's never too late.

Good, honest feedback is critical, and a picture (especially a moving one) says more than lectures ever could. If you're serious about running economy, then get yourself on film — from the front, from the back, and in profile — going at race pace or close to it. Study it. Look for wasted arm motion, for overstriding, etc.

One of the easiest ways to improve your form is to work on quicker turnover. For many people that will eliminate overstriding and unnecessary breaking motion. I went from high 150s, low 160s to 176-82. It was excruciating and felt unnatural all the way. But now 170-72 feels like a jog once i get warmed up.

BTW, the following deals with the element or relaxation. It comes from an ethically-challenged source (the infamous Chuck Francis), but that doesn't invalidate the science behind what he says. It's dead on. I don't know where i got it from; otherwise i'd tell ya.

________________________

… since the enhancement of all training elements improves both stride frequency and stride length, there's no need to worry about training one part at the expense of the other.

But, before getting into specifics, the number one secret to greater speed is relaxation! It allows a faster and more complete shutdown of antagonists, quickening alternation cycles and permitting more force to be delivered in the desired direction with less energy consumption. Relaxation must become second nature in every drill you do and every run you take. You may feel that you aren't generating enough force while relaxed (a perception that gets a lot of sprinters into trouble in big races), but remember, only the net force counts! The net force is the amount of force delivered in the desired direction minus the force generated by the antagonist muscle at the same moment.

For example, if, by maximum effort, you generate 100 pounds of force in the desired direction while putting out 30 pounds of force with the antagonists, you're left with 70 pounds of net force. If you completely relax and put out an easy 80 pounds of force in the desired direction and no pounds with the antagonists, you are left with 14% more net power with 62% less effort (80 verses130 pound total output)!

This simplistic example shows a colossal energy savings and it understates the case since, in reality, increases in energy expenditure are exponential, not linear. The shutting down of unwanted muscular activity also cuts down on the "background noise" that interferes with the hind brain's ability to rapidly process input. This is also why it's critical to work on skills one at a time.

Strangely, though most coaches think that only stride length can be improved, they attempt to work on both stride length and frequency simultaneously with towing or "over speed" devices. These devices are bad news! They force the athlete to land farther ahead of his center of gravity than normal, increasing the risk of injury and increasing the ground contact time even though the key to greater frequency is reduced ground contact time.

bump

Just do hillreps. End of story.

dnixon wrote:

I've been working on my form for over 2 years now, trying to increase my cadence, trying to land correctly, lean forward a little more, eliminate cross motion in my arms, etc. It has all helped greatly.

.

As soon as you start another running economy thread the POSE cults comes out and starts chanting.

POSE idiots, running economy is an exercise science term. It has little to do with "form training."

inquirer,

You don't like discussing running with Pose Guy's? Sorry, guess I won't be of any help to you then.

Jeremy

I do not want to debate the science of pose on this thread (I think I already know where people stand on that) but I am interested in understanding running economy.

How much of running economy improvement is related to changes in the muscles (specifically more mitochondria and more capillarization (sp?)) and how much is related to form? I have been trying to make some improvements in my form and also to run piles of miles at the same time. If the capillarization and mitochondrial growth are the larger components it seems there is probably a pretty small amount I can improve running economy from season to season.

if you train as a middle distance runner you'll be more econommic at say 25 km/hour and use less oxygen at that pace as a marathonner.If you run a marathon you'd be lesser efficient then the marathonner so you'll be a bit slower.

Thats what i think

I also heard for econommic running high stride rate is good.

I am upping that.

Lots of miles at race pace as well lots of junk miles should be good.

Also important for general running econommy: iF you have zero fast running power it will slow your econommy. If you have an oxygen of 90 ml/kg and you can only run 100 meter in 14 seconds. You'd be glad to make 19 seconds or 18.5 seconds a 100 meter on a 3 km. Say your o2max is 80 ml/kg and you can go for 12 seconds on a 100 meters it should be logical you could break 9 minutes for 3 km...

Together with that quad power seems important: Alan webb weighs 145 lbs but he beats ritz in a lot of events...

Look at alans quads. Also i think he has the speed advantage. Ofcourse some depends on your muscle fibre make up.But even if you want to run a decent marathon you wont go international with your 99% slow twitch fibres if you cant log a 13 second 100 meter. ALS even those slow guys seem to have big quads.i am not talking about kenyans but about good white men ,or other races that are black.

So for me a sum

- 100 meter sprint time (first limmit) you dont need sub 10 speed but as i told you out of experience i know that 14 second 100 emter speed doesnt get you anywhere in any dist.

- strength in legs although connected some (second limmit)

- miles of training at the pace you want to race on

- miles in general (will also probably improve muscles)

- foot build

- weight of lower leg. Even webb hasnt got big lower legs although pre bodybuild quads. Kenyans have the smallest lower legs of the world. It must be connected. Since it is at the working point. I think a bit belly fat will affect gravity less...

- flexibility of your tendons

- foot alignment

= running econommy

Southern Man wrote:

How much of running economy improvement is related to changes in the muscles (specifically more mitochondria and more capillarization (sp?)) and how much is related to form?

More the former than the latter. Running economy is measured by how efficiently you use oxygen and your energy producing substrates. Increasing the number and size of mitochondria, and the size of your capillary beds, allows you to more efficiently and effectively generate aerobic energy. Form work, more often than not, will detract from a runner's efficiency as most of this type of work is done incorrectly. Running high mileage will cause your body to adapt to its most efficient form. Hit the trails.

I am not sure if all what you say is that simple.

"weight of lower leg. Even webb hasnt got big lower legs although pre bodybuild quads. Kenyans have the smallest lower legs of the world. It must be connected. Since it is at the working point. I think a bit belly fat will affect gravity less"

The Japanese are excellent marathon runners. Runners such as Seko, Morishita had huge clonking calf muscles compared to the rest of their leg muscles. Yet they were world class at the marathon distance where one would expect running economy to be an important factor.

Jhuffman wrote:

inquirer,

You don't like discussing running with Pose Guy's? Sorry, guess I won't be of any help to you then.

Jeremy

I don't like the way the every time you come on a thread it dissolves into an overdone, tired argument about physics.

---------------------------------------------------

From what I have gathered, running economy--like most trainging variables--is a mixture of biomechanics and physiology. Stride frequency, length, good mechanics, etc. will improve economy. So will an increase in aerobic ability (measured in terms of what? LT, VO2max? I would assume both). Running more miles at race pace will allow for adaption so that race pace becomes more relaxed.

Aside from one meaningless comment about "running hills," I would like to hear about other things people have done. Can I just sit there and yell "relax" to my athletes while they run 1k repeats? Should the pace of reps increase only as long as the athlete is running relaxed?

One tactic I rarely see mentioned is the effect of running in a group of faster runners. There seems to be some sort of "osmosis" of quickness and relaxation that takes place for me when I am among slightly better runers, in which my posture, arm carriage and turnover all automatically adjust. Since we are talking about something that is a "whole-body" phenomenon, not just a series of components, I would aver that one of the best technical things one can do is to simply find good runers and run with them, with awareness of what it takes to run tall, quickly and lightly.

I think that this group-running effect is a huge, and somewhat overlooked, aspect of African success, which is only now filtering into the U.S. consciousness. One by-product of this is how often the Ethiopians and Kenyans seem to be in synch while running together in big races. For example, Daniel Komen in his 3000 record was running with EXACTLY synchronized stride with Koech for crucial stages of the race. I'm sure this was unconscious, yet telling. Also, I have a picture from the side of Bekele, Gebremariam and Gebresellasie in the Athens 10,000 on my fridge, and while only the first two are in synch (Geb was struggling a bit), from the neck down their bodies and form were remarkably similar.

So what are you saying? — that if you increase cadence, go from a slight backward lean to a slight forward lean, try and land more midfoot, work on eliminating too much cross motion in your arms, then you're a POSE-head?

FYI, i don't subscribe to POSE, have never been to any of their clinics, don't own any of their materials, and don't espouse their theories. Was just trying to share my experience with the person who started the thread.

If i'm misunderstanding the term "running economy," then please correct me. (And if you do it civilly, all the better.) My understanding of economy, however, has to do with efficiency. Economy of effort can't be achieved without economy of form. And if form is bad, then attention to correcting it is good. That seems clear enough. But again, i'm open to correction, so go for it.

Improving economy means lowering VO2 at the same speed of running, so to prove you have better economy you must measure VO2 at some submax speeds -- not always so simple because how economically you run on a treadmill may not be the same for you outside going overground. Relaxation is certainly a factor (hypnosis has improved economy for some), but when you go into a race some runners are more relaxed leading (they get more panicky when in the middle of a pack and start changing how they run), but then have to face the wind more.

We once filmed runners on a treadmill and measured economy then asked a group of coaches (and some biomechanists) to tell us which runners were the most economical, just by watching the films -- no correlation at all. Changing how you look may make you prettier, but to determine if you are more economical you must actually measure VO2 while running, and then do you still carry over your technique and relaxation into a race situation?

The idea of running with others may be a valid one, but then you may find yourself staying with the pack (when not feeling so good) and this could lead to struggling and practicing poor technique. One thing I stress is that when running at race pace or at faster speeds, you must take enough rest between reps that you can run as relaxed in the next rep as you have in the earlier ones -- cutting the rest "to make it a better workout" may actually be making it a worse workout (for improving economy that is).

Some research is hard to buy -- runners who ran 150km a week were compared in economy to others who typically did 100 or 50 km a week and those who did the 150 had better economy, but this doesn't prove cause and effect. In fact the speeds at which economy was measured was slower than even marathon pace. Maybe the higher-mileage runners were doing the higher mileage because they were more economical in the first place. Same thing with the paper we published showing that 10k and marathoners are more economical at slower speeds, and less economical at faster speeds, than are 800 and 1500 runners. Which came first? You would like to believe, and I tend to, that the 8/15 runners were more economical at faster speeds because they train at those speeds more. To really test the hypothesis that economy is improved more doing one thing than another yuo would need a few groups of runners willing to do different types of training for some time. No doubt adding weight to yuor shoes costs more -- about 1% worse economy for about 100 grams added. Need to get a good measure of calf weight and its effect on economy, but you also must measure tendon attachments, lever-arm lengths at joints, etc. I am very comfortable saying that when you stop training your economy gets worse, and when you start training again it improves.

Dr.,

Thanks for your insight. It is really appreciated. To make sure I am clear: good runners have good economy particularly at their race pace. This makes intuitive sense. (There is a deeper, unresolved--chicken-egg-question as to which came first: performance or economy). We do know that training aerobically increases economy. So, in the absence of testing mechanism, can we assume that "normal" aerobic training (volume, LT runs, VO2max intervals, etc) will improve economy? If a runner's 1600 PR is 4:30 and runs 6x800 at 2:15 pace with 1:1 rest and reports that they felt "comfortable/relaxed," could we assume adaptation in regards to economy?

Thanks again for your help.

jtupper wrote:

I am very comfortable saying that when you stop training your economy gets worse, and when you start training again it improves.

A classic, thanks!

Inquirer,

I think it is quite simple. Economy must come first, then performance.

Jeremy