what are some ways that stride rate can be increased
what are some ways that stride rate can be increased
A problem with measuring VO2 with various stride frequencies and concluding that the self-selected one is least costly is that this typically means that the stride rate you have practiced the most is the most economical. Who knows what would be the most economical if you practiced a different one for a period of time.I always have felt stride rate is pretty much someting you can select and stride length imcreases with better fitness, not just wanting to use a longer stride -- so work on the rate and with improved fitness rate will remain the same and length will increase. An Olympic marathon Champion I tested had a rate of 184/min at 7:00 pace, 186 at 6:00 pace and 190 at 5:00 pace. That's a 3% increase in rate and 39% increase in running speed. Seems the rate remains at a most economical one and to go faster you just lengthen out.
What is your conclusion for the young people wondering if they should work on increasing stride rate?
jtupper: I agree with your point about testing. It's the same problem with taking a group, changing some aspect of mechanics with half the group, and then testing efficiencies a month or two later. Some changes may be more efficient in the long run, but may take time to settle in.
To answer the original question, I over-hauled my mechanics in the last year. In the process, I went from stride frequency generally in the low 170s to now 180+ for slower runs and 190-200 for faster paces.
Here is the reply you are looking for. I am not fast by any means, but with that said...
In 2004 I was injured for 8 of the 12 months. Finally, in December I was able to resume running after a 4 month break due to a knee injury. My cadence used to be low 160's. I made a conscious effort in my return back to running to get my cadence up. At first, 170 felt ridiculously fast, and I had a hard time controlling the pace of my runs. After a couple weeks, 170 felt normal, and I began moving it up more, until I got up to 180.
The entire process took a little over a month, and perhaps another month to really feel comfortable and normal doing so. As of now, I can control my paces quite well at a cadence of 180, even if that calls for running 8:00 pace or slower. My 5k PR before this was 17:31. I recently ran a solo 16:58 5k on the track (I was so far behind everyone else the effort was solo, haha). I also PR'd for 3000m by 2 seconds in extremely windy conditions. That was 5 weeks ago, so I think I can go faster now. I also ran a 4:49 1600m time trial alone, tying my best time that came in a relay split.
My workouts and mileage have been anything but great due to time constraints, so I am anxious to see where I will stand after this summer. I am extremely injury prone, and feel that increasing my cadence while shortening my stride has helped me stay injury free thus far in 2005. Also, I do not feel as fatigued as I used to from daily running.
Hope this helps.
longer stride leads to a more inneffecient stride in the latter part of the race, as the runner loses form thus giving more of a negative effect upon longer strides than shorter strides. The runner will "bob" up and down at a greater rate when tired. The runner w/ a shorter stride length but higher turnover rate will be more effecient.
jtupper wrote:
A problem with measuring VO2 with various stride frequencies and concluding that the self-selected one is least costly is that this typically means that the stride rate you have practiced the most is the most economical. Who knows what would be the most economical if you practiced a different one for a period of time...
jtupper, I think this is an excellent point, that the repeated training could produce adaptations that are relatively specific for a given stride rate. I wonder the extent to which this is true. It seems to be more likely (to me anyway) that adaptations would be specific for a given stride length, as this parameter may be more closely linked to muscle recuitment patterns.
To Tinman, I think that you will only mislead yourself by trying to determine the economy of stride length by heart rate. Afterall, HR can be influenced by many variables beyond actual oxygen consumption. Couldn't an increased central drive resulting from recruiting more motor units (although for fewer contractions per minute keeping oxygen consumption constant)produce an increased HR? Also, differences in energy usage might be too subtle to pick up by a HR monitor.
bump
xOf1 wrote:
I really appreciate everyone's responses, but I was really looking for specific answer to a specific question:
Has anyone had PERSONAL experience where they consciously took a long-term approach to increasing their stride rate and had a decrease in race times?
Yes. I have personal experience.
I used to overstride and throw my arms all over the place. My coach made me run with batons and I was told not to hit my sides with them. Later I tried the bicycle approach (hold your left hand so your thumb can point to 2 o'clock and so your right thumb can point to 10 o'clock). Once I straightened out my arms I improved my posture and my upper body form and balance (needing a lot of core exercise to acheive that).
With better balance I worked on my legs. I made a concerted effort to run mostly upright and would focus on the movement of my legs from after the push-off to their return in front of me. It sounds ridiculous, but it was that focus that got me away from just pushing off and having a bounding stride. I also worked on running all of my intervals and long runs alike with as comfortably short a stride as possible. I have long legs for my height and torso, so when I open my legs up for a finish sprint I can tear past people. I had to do a lot to reign that in. My goal was to have as short and rapid a stride as possible because I decided that my stride was too long for the Van Cortlandt hills and too long to change gears rapidly. During cross-country I worked on developing a shorter stride (and it didn't work completely) and I dropped from 18:11 to 17:09. During indoor track I had to run 10 mile lengths through high school hallways so I decided that I needed to find the most low-impact stride I could have to stop banging up my knees, so I tried to make as soft steps as possible and kept focusing on this through the entire run. For sharp indoor turns, too, a long stride is not always economical. Come outdoor, I was turning over much more rapidly and effortlessly, dropping all of my personal records--including a 3200m jump from 10:23 to 9:56. Try to run lightly and float. Don't think about pushing off or anything but gliding.
As I have been working on this lately and when I felt the difference in Cadence for a moment I thought I was cheating! My easy training runs have quickend and I feel the same cardiovasculary and physically. It feels like an amazing discovery to increase cadence.
One thing no one mentioned and I read every post so far on this topic is to help with this start off standing straight with your chest up as well as your chin out. By lifting my chest and chin with a straight posture practing and doing this technique properly has become easier for me and it wasn't something I discoverd myself I got the idea from an article from a top trail runner who took 30 minutes off his Pikes Peak ascent by increasing cadence practicing this technique starting on slight, short hills and working to longer steeper hills and then bringing it to the flat land.
I also think about good breathing patterns and which leg I exhale on, chaning this up at times as well as taking turns consciously thinking about when my right arms swings forward my left leg is contacting the ground at the same time. I do this for a few strides then think of the other side. Keeps my upper body relaxed with what I feel is better economy. Any of you have thoughts on what I am doing and suggestions to implement?
I always thought I was doing too many strides. After reading Daniels book recently and getting an idea what I should be doing I decided to count them and it came out to be 178. So I guess I was naturally doing it right without knowing it. Usually I find I do many things the wrong way.
JY,
Your inability to except anything other than scientific studies to explain why certain training methods improve performances is absolutely OUT OF CONTROL. You need to come back to the real world of running where observational and personal experiences have more meaning than inadaquite scientific studies that can never fully explain why certain things JUST work. Sure somethings can be generalized from studies but do to the many varibles which each individual displays scientific research is last on the list in explaining most running phenomenons. I am not trying to be disrespectful I just think you place way to much weight on scientific studies when it comes to running.
I wish I'd known about this stuff much earlier in life. You've described my history perfectly: a low-cadence, overstriding, end-of-race, form-breaking-apart bobber. I've always landed on my forefoot with a pretty light strike, but it's always been too far out in front of me. I've tended to "pull" the ground toward me.
I was a mediocre high school runner (4:31 mile / 1:59 880) and college runner (1:54 800 / 3:57 1500 / 15:30 5K) whose string of coaches never emphasized building a good aerobic base nor said a word about form or cadence. I could run a 400 in low 52, so although my speed wasn't superb, it was better than average. Nevertheless, I never felt like I ran as fast as I was capapable of running, despite my hard work. I'm suspecting that my form and cadence contributed a good bit to this.
So this is all brand-spankin' new to me. Now at 49, and with a joy in running that's never left me, I've been looking at my form for the first time in my life. I've been trying to run with a more upright posture, keep my elbows in to eliminate cross-motion, to hold my arms a little high and less out in front, and not overstride.
This morning I went out for an easy 3-mile run and paid attention to cadence for the very first time in my entire life!! The first mile was warmup and completed in 9:00 (hey, I'm stiff and old!). At the end of that mile I counted 155 strides p/min (STM). So I shortened my stride and tried for more leg turnover and got to only 160. This felt fast. Then I tried again, reaching 165 with great effort and concentration. My stride length felt ridiculously short and fast and unnatural (and I thought I probably looked a little silly, too). And then I tried one more time to go shorter and faster, finally reaching 170. I was thinking, "How do people do this?!"
The thing is, although it was hard to achieve that cadence, it did in fact feel way less demanding aerobically. I covered the remaining 2 miles at < 8:00 pace and finished with a pulse rate about 10-15 beats p/min. less than what it normally is for that kind of a run. Interesting.
Who says an old dog can't learn new tricks. For me, this is where Let's Run shines.
dnixon, Great to hear. Continue with this experiment. It begins to come more naturally after only several days. Also make sure your posture is upright and try to feel as though you are leading with your hips. Like a string is tied around your waist and you are using hamstrings to pull your legs through rather than a forward upper body lean and quads pushing. It all kind of goes together. Good luck and enjoy the difference.
In reply to many. I started counting stride rates of elite runners back in the 60s and have always seen the good runners be in the 180 and even faster range. All the good ones I have tested use the same rate overground and on the treadmill. My wife and I counted rates of about 60 runners (from 800 to marathon, men and women) at the 84 Olympics and reported those results at a conference that next year. We counted the same runners in various races and timed them over known track distances so we could get both stride length and rate. Only one runner was under 180 (178). IN all my years teachng beginning running classes (some thousands of subjects) I always have them count stride rate the first day and have never had one as fast as 180. Seems interesting that novices turnover 160 or so and all the good ones go 180 or more. I tend to believe that the good ones learned to do that as a means of feeling better and avoiding injury better. So I think it is a good idea to teach beginners how to turnover right from the time they start running, so it won't take years of training to eventually get to that point. I have seen the thread on Jack Bacheler (one of my former subjects) who is 6-6 and was in the 180 range for stride rate, as was Gerry Lindgren, a considerably shorter runner than Bach. When racing, the 1500 and even more so the 800 runners get a much faster turnover (over 200 for some). We also checked the rates of runners in the 10k at the Olympics and counted at various stages of the race. All stayed the same until they dropped off the pace then rate fell apart (but so did stride length to some extent). Puica, who won the women's 3000 that year, actually slowed a couple steps in rate but her final 200 kick involved a drastic increase in stride length (may not be as economical, but however you can get into that needed gear is worth the effort at the end of the race). In general, increase in stride length is where the increase in speed comes from.
JY: I have measured both oxygen consumption at submax paces and blood plasma lactates which confirm the fact that changing stride rates while maintaing speed does effect economy and efficiency (at least for some people). For, example, my friend Mark F. was a good local triathlete. He wanted to be performance tested. So, I put him on the treadmill and measured several variables. I asked him to come back in two weeks because I wanted to test him on stride frequency. I had noticed that he seem to take fairly long strides in the first test but I could not confirm it because I had not counted his strides per minute and his legs were long (which can be deceiving to the observer).
Anyway, Mark came back and I set a speed at 80% of the peak VO2 velocity on the treadmill. I don't recall why I did that but I think it was what I thought he could do for the Ironman triathlon he was training for. After a 10 minute warmup run, he ran 2 sets of 10 minute runs in which the first half of the first rep was run with a longer stride and the second half (second 5 minutes) was run with as shorter but quicker stride. The process was reversed on the second 10 minute run which was done after a 5 minute rest break and a 1 minute jog leadup to the 80% velocity. Result, for Joe, the longer strides (170 and 172 per minute, his natural stride rate) was less efficient that a quicker stride rate (I think 178 and 181). All factors except percieved effort were lower with the faster stride rate. Joe thought he was working harder but his heart rate was lower, his lactate levels were lower, and his relative VO2 was lower. Tinman
To the person who asked if I have coached anybody who purposely trained to use faster stride rates, the answer is yes. Last year, I coached an Ohoian who is in his mid-30s. I asked him to work on quicker strides, giving him pointers about form, and he worked on it, starting with striders. After a couple of weeks he reported that his average pace per mile was dropping quite a bit and he was amazed at the result. He ended up, after having been out of good shape for 3 years, running a sub 31 10k on the roads and placing quite high too. His experience confirmed that for him working that a quicker stride rate was beneficial. In conclusion, there is enough emperical evidence to at least make me suggest that people give it a try. Tinman
This thread is a good reminder! I was working on this last year for a bit but have gotten away from it. The wild thing for me is how much different it feels to run at a very small change- this is during a distance run. I think naturally right now i am around 160-165 and when i was trying to go up to even 170 or 175 it feels so much quicker. I dont think i practiced it enough to make it natural though.
I'm about to go off to do a little run and I think I will pay attention to my stride frequency, anyone feel slower with the quicker strides? I've always felt faster when I have longer strides.
Thanks for the encouragement and the good advice. I'll take it to heart and practice what you've suggested.
MR. Daniels, do you have an email so that I may contact you about a personal situation in my running carreer I think you may be able to help with. If so, thank you.