Strides after every run? Yes or No?!

When would you ever NOT do strides? You realize that they have many physiologic benefits?

Including (but not limited to):

1. Work on form

2. Work on speed

3. Combat lactate accumulation for better recovery and less soreness the next day.

I know of many pro runners and NCAA all-americans who do a set of 10 strides every day.

The trick is that you have to either alternate fast with slow strides, or do a pyramid. (eg. 1 and 10 are the slowest, 5 and 6 are the fastest).

I always feel better the next day if I do a few strides after the run. I feel sluggish the following day if I just do a distance run or recovery run without any quicker running. If I do 6-8 strides after, my legs feel a lot fresher for the next run.

So, yeah, I do strides every day. Really no reason not to.

Med School Runner wrote:

When would you ever NOT do strides? You realize that they have many physiologic benefits?

Including (but not limited to):

1. Work on form

2. Work on speed

3. Combat lactate accumulation for better recovery and less soreness the next day.

no, not really. they don't work on form or speed because they're too short, too fast, and not specific for anything. lactate accumulation buffering is a JOKE that I can't even believe you would assert that doing a stride helps.

strides are essentially pointless. if you want to work on form, do form drills. if you want to work on speed, do speed work. if you want to work on LT, do an LT workout. if you want to 'prime' yourself or do some openers to prep yourself for the next day's workout, doing longer reps slightly slower.

doing strides is just a nothing thing to do. i guess if you like doing them, then that's something, but to assert that they have physiological value is not true.

Incorrect. What do you consider speed work? If you want to work soley on the proper term "speed", then the only way would be to fire white muscle fibers. These can only fire at near 100% for about 50 meters. My suggestion would be a 150 meter acceleration, 50 build up, 50 top speed, 50 decel. That is the ONLY real way to work on raw speed. You can't really do these everyday though. Probably 2-3 times per week for a distance runner.

Please explain what you mean by speed work?? Anything slower than what I suggested is not true speed work.

Do you have any scientific proof that they have no physiological value? Running faster than race pace has no physiological value? Please explain this statement.

And lastly, are you trolling? They're "too fast" for speed work?? I gotta ask.

BD Runner wrote:

Incorrect. What do you consider speed work? If you want to work soley on the proper term "speed", then the only way would be to fire white muscle fibers. These can only fire at near 100% for about 50 meters. My suggestion would be a 150 meter acceleration, 50 build up, 50 top speed, 50 decel. That is the ONLY real way to work on raw speed. You can't really do these everyday though. Probably 2-3 times per week for a distance runner.

Please explain what you mean by speed work?? Anything slower than what I suggested is not true speed work.

Do you have any scientific proof that they have no physiological value? Running faster than race pace has no physiological value? Please explain this statement.

And lastly, are you trolling? They're "too fast" for speed work?? I gotta ask.

i consider it the same as most any other person on this board would consider it: race speed.

400m speed, mile speed, 5k, 10k, etc.

do you really need that explained to you? and your only attempt at a rebuttal is with some crap about only maintaining true 'speed' for 5 seconds? 'raw speed' has absolutely NO bearing on race speed for any distance runner.

Why? Because 'raw speed' is NEVER a limiting factor in these races.

What good does '5 second' speed do for any distance runner? EVER?!

strides are one of these archaic bullsh!t training ideas that are thrown out there for nostalgia sake.

I'll also throw out there that your 5 second maximal effort is NOT what most everyone else is talking about when they mention strides.

You're talking about all-out sprints which is completely different.

And lastly, since you felt compelled to throw it out and you have absolutely no rebuttal to my post, I'll pose the same question: are you trolling?

I would like to see you close some runs with a hard mile and short cool-down, no strides.

Also, you could do 1/2 dozen hill repeats after your run.

Good luck!!

no, not really: I don't think you even understand the fundamentals of distance running success. I will not explain to you the benefits of improving speed in distance runners, because you cannot fathom shorter event success for gains later in longer races. Have you ever tried this? Do you realize how much easier 400m repeats feel after having successfully completed several weeks of accelerations to improving speed? Your ideas are random and crazy. I feel sorry for you and I wish you the best in your running career if you are competing.

BD Runner wrote:

no, not really: I don't think you even understand the fundamentals of distance running success. I will not explain to you the benefits of improving speed in distance runners, because you cannot fathom shorter event success for gains later in longer races. Have you ever tried this? Do you realize how much easier 400m repeats feel after having successfully completed several weeks of accelerations to improving speed? Your ideas are random and crazy. I feel sorry for you and I wish you the best in your running career if you are competing.

That's very cute and all, but your pedantic diatribe comprised almost entirely of ad hominems and other fallacies does not, in any way, refute or rebut my post.

Care to try again or are you satisfied with the silliness you've already thrown up?

"How much easier 400m repeats are", haha. Nice.

To "no, not really"

You make some interesting points. But aren't strides sort of form drills?

*stipe wrote:

To "no, not really"

You make some interesting points. But aren't strides sort of form drills?

no not really...

*stipe wrote:

To "no, not really"

You make some interesting points. But aren't strides sort of form drills?

Sure, could be for some if that's what you're focusing on. Solely doing strides or strides in and of themselves aren't that beneficial for form, though. Incorporating them in to other form drills could be beneficial.

no, not really wrote:

*stipe wrote:

To "no, not really"

You make some interesting points. But aren't strides sort of form drills?

Sure, could be for some if that's what you're focusing on. Solely doing strides or strides in and of themselves aren't that beneficial for form, though. Incorporating them in to other form drills could be beneficial.

He actually doesn't make any interesting points. I got the idea from Tim Broe when I lived in Michigan. I'm not sure where he gets his ideas but until he runs times like Broe did, no one on this board is going to listen to him. Also, Michigan State and Wisconsin were doing these types of accels too and those were just the two programs that I knew of.

Do you have any substantial evidence to support your claims? Or is this just your belief system? To top it off, the name is anonymous. You're not really contributing anything at all. But that's letsrun for you.

BD Runner wrote:

He actually doesn't make any interesting points. I got the idea from Tim Broe when I lived in Michigan. I'm not sure where he gets his ideas but until he runs times like Broe did, no one on this board is going to listen to him. Also, Michigan State and Wisconsin were doing these types of accels too and those were just the two programs that I knew of.

Do you have any substantial evidence to support your claims? Or is this just your belief system? To top it off, the name is anonymous. You're not really contributing anything at all. But that's letsrun for you.

Wow, Brett, getting a bit riled up, aren't you?

Are you really using one person as evidence that they work? And are you implying that him not doing strides would have led to him being slower?

See what you're doing, Brett? You're letting your conclusion write your premise.

And you still haven't refuted anything I've said. Your entire argument hinges on 'well, he did it and you're not as fast as him so you must be wrong'.

See the problem with that, Brett?

I've noticed zero difference between when I did strides and when I didn't. The HUGE difference was in doing hill sprints, though. Strides are fairly worthless.

I like strides at the end of a warm up and cool down.

strides help you build up your speed without breaking down your body. they are not too unlike 20/10s, since they usually involve short rest. 20/10s improve anaerobic and aerobic ability significantly more than easy runs alone. And then you prepare your muscles for race pace the day before. I have never seen any negatives and often seen significant improvements in workouts when I do strides the previous day. If you have already been doing more serious speedwork, then it is more of a maintenance issue that does not cause injury and that does not break you down and require easy days afterwards, so you can do them frequently.

jjjjjjj wrote:

strides help you build up your speed without breaking down your body. they are not too unlike 20/10s, since they usually involve short rest. 20/10s improve anaerobic and aerobic ability significantly more than easy runs alone. And then you prepare your muscles for race pace the day before. I have never seen any negatives and often seen significant improvements in workouts when I do strides the previous day. If you have already been doing more serious speedwork, then it is more of a maintenance issue that does not cause injury and that does not break you down and require easy days afterwards, so you can do them frequently.

They don't help you build up your speed. How would they?

It also seems like you're calling sprints 'strides'(with your 20/10 comparison) but maximal sprints are something entirely different.

But what's the point of doing them frequently?

How is it maintenance? Again, if you like doing them, then great. But to assert that they have some tangible physiological value or are necessary to improve (or maintain) is misleading.

Bumping an old post while searching.

With all this guy's attempts at arguing against physiological benefits, he still doesn't fully grasp what is possibly the most important point and potential benefit for many who do strides and that is the neurological aspect. That strides likely help get some pop back into many persons nervous systems is irrefutable. You can't sit behind a computer screen and prove that me or others who derive benefit from them, that we dont really feel better after doing them.

I still believe though that some strides also help prime the hormonal system some too. I can't see though where this guy can argue the neurological aspect and try to tell folks they have no benefit when many of us know from experience we feel better with them and worse without.

Doing longer slower reps the day before the workout I think is stupid, then you're just risking coming in flat the next day from reps that are too long. Plus I've always thought of strides to be perceived effort-based and nothing to be paced. I do them at the day's appropriate effort to feel better.

“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”

you don't get faster and/or improve your efficiency by working on your speed every once in awhile....running fast/efficiently is a skill that you have to work on regularly.