hmm. wrote: …because my body already automatically tells me how to run most economically without having to think about it.
Where does this idea come from? There are very few things we do with perfect efficiency. Basically everything is a leaned skill. Do you swim with perfect form? How about squat and deadlift? Do you pick up any instrument or sport and play with perfect form? “Oh but running is a natural movement” you might say. Well so is singing and almost everyone on letsrun probably sings in an incredibly inefficient way (lack of support, improper placement etc). Why is running different to that?
Just to clarify though, I don’t know that 180 steps per minute is better than other cadences and I’m not advocating that necessarily here but just the idea itself that running is an activity that we habitually do perfectly just seems insane to me. Where does this idea come from?
Do you think Kipchoge didn’t work on his running form?
My take on this is that our bodies do generally find the most economical way to move and after some time of doing it any "fixes" might cause issues such as injuries because now the body is being asked to move in a novel way.
Also, I am old enough to remember (and even be part of a study) on the POSE method. The idea was there was one ideal way to run and that changing it would make people faster. Our data showed it did not at least not in 6 weeks.
There are likely some "big" things we can focus on (lack of arm swing or arms crossing over the body gets me), but largely what we think of an ideal running form might not be the most economical for a specific runner. Even things like vertical oscillation that I taught was bad does not seem to play a big role (any role?) when running economy is measured.
Even with swimming there are individual adjustments one makes (and unlike running there are rules about the strokes that constrain one).
Some... what, 20 years ago?... Coach Jack Daniels looked at tapes of Olympians from the 1500 to the marathon and observed that most had a cadence of 180. Over time, 180 became "a rule" of running. The reality is that there's some variation, mostly based on height.
More like 45 yrs ago, but yes, ol' Daniels observed Olympians and guess what, they ran approx the same cadence because they all ran around the same pace, the fool...and then all the hobby joggers read this and all are going pitter patter at 6mim/km.
I have good running economy- from observation, and more importantly conversion of times as distance increases, energy requirements etc, don't have a very high VO2max etc- but even at 1.65m my cadence never came near 180 at 3min/km. You cannot overstride if you are landing under your COG
You cannot tell ones running economy by observation or by times either. Eastern Michigan gathered data on the RE of runners on the track team over several years. Asked the coach beforehand to predict you had the best RE. The coach's guess was not very good.
But I’ve never seen a study that monitors progress and efficiency over time. If you change a technique, it’ll take a little bit of time to become more efficient.
You don't need a study do you.
Stand at the 30km of a marathon, watch the 3hr bus go by, make predictions of who would still be on the bus purely on how they are running, then go to finish,,or look at final results.
Done that several times, can pretty much pick who are going to drop off.
We are 'animals', if left to our own devises, we automatically move in the most efficient way. If we become overweight/obese/desk bound etc...then 20 yrs later start running, few of us are running in that efficient way
I agree a bit that the ones who survive find their most economical path. I am not so sure your observation of the marathon would really validate your point either.
Running economy (RE) is considered an important physiological measure for endurance athletes, especially distance runners. This review considers 1) how RE is defined and measured and 2) physiological and biomechanical factors...
