concerns with JK's articles

A couple responses:

(1) I always read "studies" alongside the experience of coaching and training for the last twenty years. Studies, for example, have told us that high-intensity, low volume training better adapts the aeroic system despite the contrary experience of countless elite runners. So, there is some variable that the science can't account for accurately. In fact, numerous people have criticized the study you mentioned since the time frame (as I recall) was only 6 months.

(2) I have spoken with Dr. Daniels on the subject of stride frequency and his observations were striking when observing elite runners. All of them have nearly identical stride rates (according to the distance they were running) so, there must be something at play there. You point out a chicken and egg problem (go back and read the thread from years ago on economy that jtupper comments on since he addresses the issue himself).

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=1582939&thread=1582939

(3) As to point #2, the issue here is how do we improve running economy so as to improve our performance? Kellog point is that practicing good form (including a higher stride rate) at the proper aerobic effort is akin to doing drills in martial arts or shooting free throws in basketball--all develop the proper muscle memory that can later be used for harder and harder skills like running all-out. To argue that elites have certain muscles that determine their stride rate is only a way of saying that elites are elites. It doesn't mean that the sub-elite or even the weekend jogger shouldn't try emulate their training (to varying degrees) in order to improve (just like all kids should practice good shooting form). In fact, when I see a jogger at the park I almost always think that if they could increase their stride frequency by 30-40% they would notice a tremendous benefit in their training. I have also worked with several high school programs who insist from the very first day of practice, that all runs (including easy ones) maintain 180 strides per minute.

Next time you go to an XC race count the stride rate of the top ten guys or girls and then the last ten. Compare stride rate and notice the difference. If the bottom ten want to become the top ten (or even more like the top ten), they need to practice running at a higher stride rate without--and this is what I think JK is really stressing--the attendant stress of hard running.

I see a lot of high schoolers doing drills. When I coached high schoolers, I was fond of saying that the best drill was running with perfect form at the proper pace.

I think a lot of the top/fast runners generally have a higher stride rate anyway....around 180 or faster at almost all speeds.

A lot of undertrained/slow runners tend to slow their stride rate in a race as they tire...they start to over-stride.

It seems like you'd develop your most your economy naturally, just by running more because your body adapts to what it finds most efficient. The key is to stimulate it with enough fast paced workouts and motor coordination so that it does not become sloppy and slow.

Economy in a mechanical sense is not just stride rate and stride length....its going to be about how you pronate, how your foot hits the ground, how your toes are pointed, your Q-angle, the shoes you are wearing, the length of your femur relative to your tibia, your paw-back action, and any muscle imbalances (ie between hammies and quads).

I've seen guys with a high % of FT fibers develop a very fast stride rate at slow to LT types of speeds....a lot of it may be that because they are mainly FT, they will never be as economical at sub-maximal speeds as would say, a "born marathoner." If they take a slower stride rate you risk injury because of the increased impact force- so it makes sense for the body to adapt with that in mind.

don't expect a can of worms but do expect the general consensus to hang on to the outdated ideas as long as possible and that means one bad idea built firmly upon another upon another.

that_guy wrote:

i propose this. economy (at least in mechanical terms) is a relationship between stride frequency and stride length. stride length should roughly be determined or at least be partially due to force of push-off.

That's a good formula for velocity, but will it really define economy? Some runners can have a greater vertical component to each stride than other runners with basically the same stride lengths and rates. They might have a lot of force on the push-off, but some of that force is directed upward instead of forward, meaning they're wasting energy and have to work extra hard to maintain that quick stride rate. And what about a runner with a long stride and a fast cadence but a wild arm action and a twisting torso? The guy might be fast, but his economy could be horrendous. Why not try to correct something that might let him run at the same pace with less wasted energy?

Like fingerprints on each human are different, so are runners. What works for one, fails for another. Having over 50 years as runner, coach, and student of the art, I have tried every recommendation. I kept some and threw others away. I find three things most important, flexibility, sleep, and training the mind. Stride length and frequency will find their own place as focus developes. My three favorite runners of all time were totally different, Abebe Bekila, Billy Rodgers, and Ed Whitlock. All three had and have total focus, and all three found and find it in different ways. One size never fits all.

I noticed this too and the difference is even more obvious in elite road races. The winner usually has a much higher stride frequency than let's say number 30. Could it be concluded that the winner of a long distance road race wins because he or she has the best aerobic capacity of all participants, and is therefore able to maintain a high stride frequency? A high stride frequency could be a direct result of aerobic fitness rather than of a specific running style. Please comment.

responder wrote:

Next time you go to an XC race count the stride rate of the top ten guys or girls and then the last ten. Compare stride rate and notice the difference. If the bottom ten want to become the top ten (or even more like the top ten), they need to practice running at a higher stride rate without--and this is what I think JK is really stressing--the attendant stress of hard running.

I am surprised you guys think a fast stride frequency is the key to being a fast runner. I see plenty of slow runners (often females), who appear as if they are going a lot faster than they are because they clip along with a pretty quick, choppy turnover. But they are covering very little ground with those strides, and thus going nowhere. And guess what? I doubt much changes when they race. I've also seen some older folks move along slowly with a pretty decent turnover. But again, they have little flexibility or strength, so they can only cover a little ground with those strides, and again, they don't don't move very fast.

As Coe/Martin pointed out in their book many moons ago, as running speed increases more and more, stride rate and stride length both increase, but stride LENGTH increases a lot more. If you want to run really fast.... you need to increase your stride length. And doing strength exercises, flexibility work, jumping drills, and yes, practicing a longer more powerful stride sometimes will all move you in that direction.

And related to this idea of increased power being important (but not necessarily about stride length) is where I've been waiting to hear JK talk about -explosive strength training( he has more parts to come), because I've seen several studies showing that strength training improves running economy. And it makes sense, because as your legs become more powerful and neurally efficient, the energy it takes for one push off the ground with each stride becomes less, and thus you run more economically, or, can produce more power when you need to.

Here is a link to and the conclusion from a recent Applied Physiology article-

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

"The improved neuromuscular characteristics of the present E athletes were related to both VMART and RE. Improvements in V20 m, 5J, and CTs of the CVLs correlated with the improvement in VMART during the training period. These results support the observation by Nummela et al. (34) that training utilizing various jumping and sprinting exercises with high contraction velocities and reaction forces results in increases in stretch-shortening cycle exercises such as sprint running and also allows improvements in VMART. Moreover, these results are in line with previous observations that VMART is influenced by the interaction of neuromuscular and anaerobic characteristics and that VMART can be used as a measure of muscle power (37, 38).

Another possible mechanism for the improvement in the 5-km running performance seemed to be related to RE. It has been reported (24) that heavy-resistance strength training improved RE of female distance runners. The importance of the neuromuscular characteristics in determining RE and thereby running performance has recently been pointed out also by Dalleau et al. (8). They showed that the energy cost of running is significantly related to the stiffness of the propulsive leg, which is also demonstrated by the present decrease in the CTs of CVLs and increase in V20 m and 5J in the E group. It has been suggested (9) that the 5% decrease in the energy cost of running explains an improvement in the distance running performance time of ~3.8%. This is in line with the results of the present study, in which RE and 5K time of the E group improved by 8.1 and 3.1%, respectively, and no changes in O2 max were observed. Furthermore, the present correlations between the improvements in the neuromuscular characteristics and RE were statistically significant. All these findings, together with the relationship between the improvement in V5K and RE, suggest that explosive-strength training had a positive influence on RE and running performance because of the improved neuromuscular characteristics. However, RE at race pace is different from that at submaximal running velocity. The significant correlation between RE and VMART suggests that muscle power may influence RE both at submaximal velocities and most probably at race pace.

In conclusion, simultaneous explosive-strength training, including sprinting and endurance training, produced a significant improvement in the 5-km running performance by well-trained endurance athletes without changes in O2 max or other aerobic power variables. This improvement is suggested to be due to improved neuromuscular characteristics that were transferred into improved muscle power and RE. "

i am not saying that stride rate has no importance in performance. it may or may not. more to the point, i am saying that stride rate (while it may have some effect on performance) does not appear to have as great an effect on economy (if any at all) so claiming that increasing or decreasing or changing it in any way with the goal of improving running economy may not be the best recomendation.

ill also say this, how may of those top runners that daniels obeserved do you think started running by counting how many strides per minute they took until they were comfortable at 180? im willing to bet that that is not normal practice in kenya. i am saying that it is possible that top runners have a higher stride frequency because they are top runners and that they are not top runners because they have a higher stride frequency.

improving running economy is probably more metabolic than it is mechanical (unless someone has extremely terrible form) so i would argue that time would be better spent on running that would improve the metabolic process of improving economy and the mechanical improvements will come from that- not the other way around.

I never suggested that you said "that stride rate has no importance in performance". U said others were stressing the importance of stride rate, while I was saying that for really fast running, stride length is of equal if not more importance. And strength/power play a key role in stride length (and some role in stride frequency too).

Well, it's both probably. But I was probably saying something a little different than you here. I was suggesting (and linked to an article demonstrating this) that improved neuro-muscular abilities/increased mechanical strength strongly improved Running Economy, even while other metabolic processes did not necessarily improve. Improving one's leg power will increase one's running economy AND allow one to increase stride length when one wants to ulimately run at peak speeds, a double victory (ie, one can either run at the same stride length and frequency as before, but with less energy used, or one can increase one's stride length (and turnover) and thus reach peaks speed levels one could not before)

Stride rate is important. I doubt any top runners count their strides on a regular basis, but they naturally have a higher stride rate. Having a faster turnover is more efficient. If you take less strides, the impact with the ground will increase, which could slow you down or even cause injury. S. Canaday is right about your body adapting to the most efficient stride the more you run, which is why elite athletes have a higher stride frequency.

smooth fast efficient wrote:

..., which is why elite athletes have a higher stride frequency.

Once again, if you compare elites to back of the pack, you will find a bigger disparity between their stride lengths than their stride frequencies. The elites can maintain a longer, more powerful stride much longer than we can, while their turnover is only slightly faster than many back of the packers.

(but to be fair, it is of course harder to have stride frequency that is high when you are also covering lots of ground with each stride. So if you have athlete A that has a stride rate of 180 and covers 12" with each stride, and athletes B also has a stride rate of 180 but covers 24" with each stride, obviously athlete B has to be moving his legs faster than athlete A in order to have an equal stride rate despite having a much greater range of motion of his legs. Even if their groud contact times were similar, athlete B is keeping contact with ground for a greater distance behind his tors, and therefore also having to bring his leg forward farther and get it back to the ground in the same amount of time that athlete A is slowly pushing off the ground and moving his leg lazily forward for a much shorter distance. The point I am trying to is that athlete B is of course moving his legs not only a greater range of motion and covering more ground than athlete A, but he is also moving his legs faster than athlete A. Now that is obvious to many, but I think sometimes some are misled by necessarily connecting a faster stride frequency with a faster movement of their legs. When you cover less ground, you don't have to move your legs particularly fast to get a high stride rate)

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

In conclusion, simultaneous explosive-strength training, including sprinting and endurance training, produced a significant improvement in the 5-km running performance by well-trained endurance athletes without changes in O2 max or other aerobic power variables. This improvement is suggested to be due to improved neuromuscular characteristics that were transferred into improved muscle power and RE. "

Welcome to the 1950s.

smooth fast efficient wrote:

Stride rate is important. I doubt any top runners count their strides on a regular basis, .

I doubt that any have even thought of doing it even once.

nothing new here wrote:

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

In conclusion, simultaneous explosive-strength training, including sprinting and endurance training, produced a significant improvement in the 5-km running performance by well-trained endurance athletes without changes in O2 max or other aerobic power variables. This improvement is suggested to be due to improved neuromuscular characteristics that were transferred into improved muscle power and RE. "

Welcome to the 1950s.

Why not ? Some training arguments from the past are best than those from the present. Lydiard training wasnt from the 70s ?

Seems like a recap of what has often been written in the past, superfluous at best. The old versus the new, put one foot in front of the other...........Has Kellog's time come and gone?

nothing new here wrote:

Welcome to the 1950s.

What do you mean by that exactly ?

Are you saying that all top distance runners in the '50's included explosive strength training during their aerobic base training ? Were all aware it would not only help their raw speed, but their efficiency/economy at 5k or 10k pace? I don't think so. So, even if some did this type of training and were aware of the exact value of it, it hardly influenced all coaches/athletes.

Or are you saing that it is outdated info and people have moved onto to bigger and better training ideas? If so, let's have at them.

Or are you suggesting that this training concept is old like all "new" training concepts, and therefore "there is nothing new under the sun as far as endurance training is concerned ?" If so, then why are here....just to tell people that? I guess it is pointless then to try and train more intelligently than another, since everyone is aware of the same info, trains the same way, and therefore the most talent will always win out.

lance, don't take it personally here. sometimes it's like explaining infinity to a poodle.

I want to thank the previous posters on this thread for the thoughtful discussion of running economy. I especially liked Sir Lance's link to the scientific article--its a pleasure to read quality research in any field.

I thought I could contribute to this thread by explaining my understanding of why stride frequency is a remarkably consistent variable among elite level runners. It relates to the intrinsic speed at which the elastic structures in our bodies, such as tendons and tensed muscle, recoil during the running stride. When we discuss proper running form we often overlook the role that these elastic structures play in storing and then returning energy to our running stride. In some analysis they have attributed up to 50% of the energy required to move one's legs during running to come from elastic recoil. A good example of this would be the achilles tendon, which is held tensed at the moment of impact with the ground. Upon impact, the tendon absorbs energy from the footstrike, and then snaps back much like a rubber band would to return a certain amount of energy absorbed by the lower limb into a propulsive force. Our legs are full of elastic structures like that which help us to keep our legs moving while minimizing the amount of muscular contraction, which costs precious energy.

This relates to stride frequency because the rate at which our tendons recoil is a relatively fixed variable. You can imagine this by picturing a rubber band. If you stretch the rubber band,its going to snap back at a certain speed. The more its stretched, the faster it recoils but if its stretched the same amount it will recoil at the same speed every time. When put in the context of running, when one swings the leg forward a stretch is being applied to the hamstrings and elastic structures such as the IT band. When it is time to then swing the leg backwards and contact with the ground, a combination of muscular contraction and elastic recoil will propel the leg.

My understanding is that because the rate of elastic recoil is relatively constant, it dictates that economical runners (i.e. good runners) who do a good job of using it will all have stride rates that are very similar. Thus, it is an intrinsic property of our tendons that determine the optimal stride frequency. Therefore, runners with high turnovers will be using more elasticity to power their legs through a running cycle, and the runners with lower stride frequency will have to rely much more upon muscular power, which is less efficient.

Any thoughts?

private investigator wrote:

Why not ? Some training arguments from the past are best than those from the present. Lydiard training wasnt from the 70s ?

That was my point. The so-called study didn't prove anything new.