Running form/economy/efficiency at speed. Whatever you want to call it.
Improving running form is underrated on these forums as a means to improving performance. Often when the subject is raised, the dogmatic advice is to “just run more miles and your form will take care of itself”. This is bad advice. Improving running form, all else being equal, will improve your performance more than any other lever provided you are training at a reasonable level.
How to improve running form? You have to re-train fundamental movement patterns. Strength training might help but is not enough on its own. Drills might help but are not enough on their own. You have to practice running differently. Forward lean, powerful push off, strong engagement of the hamstrings and glutes, superb hip extension, elbows back, landing under your COM. These are fundamental characteristics of elites’ running style.
Discus.
Having trained with a world champion 1500m and marathoner and taught a young athlete who has 4 top 5 finishes in world cycling champs the key concepts are genetic gifts, singular focus, ability to stay injury free, the ability to absorb training, and great training environment. Simple
Genetics/talent. Two runners could have the same lifetime mileage & very different PBs. re we really gonna say one is working harder than the other? Hard work isn't always enough.
Form becomes more important when you have a fast runner looking for marginal gains. It's probably not going to be enough for a sub-elite type who is already running decent mileage to make a big jump in the sport.
While the first sentence of your second paragraph is intuitively appealing, I wonder how accurate it is? Which seems to boil down to 2 questions:
1) Is there anyone who's done a fair amount of training and racing and had some success who's form CAN be improved? Could John Ngugi or Alberto Salazar's form have been improved without causing more harm than good?
2) If #1 CAN sometimes be done, how many coaches have the biomechanical expertise to do it? I'm guessing that this number is very, very small. Do I roughly recall a coach who might know a thing or two about running - perhaps aforementioned - that tried this with a certain all-time HS phenon named Cain? Did it work? Was it worth the time and effort and distraction? Did it possibly do harm?
Anyway, to answer my main question in #2, I'd say <1% of HS coaches, not too much better than that in college, and perhaps a handful of pro athlete coaches, worldwide?
Which I think all translates to what has already been implied: Just about every runner and coach should be worrying about OTHER things with respect to optimizing performance. I think that "form correction" is largely the very amateur playground of self-styled biomechanics (non-)experts.
It's interesting how so many folks think that they know about good and bad form. But there are 2 kinds of ignorance:
1) The kind that MOST of us have, including me (runner and track fan for >40 years) - i.e., not knowing sh** about biomechanics. What is supposed to be where, when? No clue. This is probably hard to fix, as you'd have to LEARN about biomechanics, and depending on your sources and mental make-up, it might be hard to understand.
2) The OTHER kind of ignorance is far less defensible: It's the "good form is pretty" (or at least not ugly) view. Now, those who practice it would deny that they're being that simplistic. But in most cases (without the knowledge of #1 above), they almost certainly are. They'd say that Grant Fischer has good form. And the slow freshman XC runner all over the place does not. Fair enough. EXCEPT for the fact that at that SAME XC race, if large enough, you'll see MUCH faster runners who do NOT look anything like Grant Fisher - and sometimes roughly as bad as the aforementioned slow frosh. And you can spend ALL DAY on YouTube watching world class runners who don't look nearly as pretty as Grant Fisher. Indeed, way worse. Hell, JUST start with John Ngugi. And then Salazar. And Zatopek. And Tananguchi (sp?). And dozens or hundreds of others, depending on how much time you want to waste.
With all due respect, it seems like such a lazy form of ignorance.
Nice straw man. I never said good form was pretty. I said elites, in general, share certain characteristics about how they run that non-elites, in general, do not share. Always outliers on either side of the spectrum but that’s not who we’re talking about.
I also don’t think Grant Fisher’s form is that pretty. Arm carriage is a bit weird/robotic looking. He has superb hip mechanics though. Jakob’s form is much prettier.
Sure, it's perhaps unfair to use a simple word like "pretty" to summarize your understanding of running biomechanics. But I think that in many cases - including possibly largely yours - it's not a WHOLE lot more sophisticated than that. And regardless of whether your knowledge rises above a simpleton level, is it nearly good enough to start tinkering with form? I think probably not.
And not to be a jerk, but your "sounds-pretty-non-technical" assessment of Fisher's arm carriage - "...is a bit WEIRD/robotic looking" - would seem to reinforce my general impression.
Form can help, but it wont turn a regional runner into a national champ. I had several college teammates who had aweful, gangly running form who were very fast and some with textbook smooth form that were slower. Muscle fiber type and mitochondria are MUCH bigger factors.
You need that and good basic speed to have better running economy. And that's before you start the to put the serious work in.
And billions don't. Not to mention 70 is a very low number. Most of the elite guys are north of 75 which is a pretty big difference.
Realistically those elite guys have everything. They have high vo2maxes. They have the biomechanics to be efficient and fast. And they have the ability to train.
The gap between the 13:00 guy and 13:20 might be training, attention to recovery and so. The gap between the 13:00 and 16:00 guy is mainly genetics.
I am subelite, to add even more to my cred i am self made subelite and i come from Eastern Europe where athletic knowledge is subpar to say the least.
I can see with my own eyes the difference between elite and between me, i have even trained and talked with the elites.
First thing that i see is body, its not noticeable to an untrained eye, but the elite is usually just a little taller than his subelite companions, he has just a little less bodyfat and he has just a little more muscle definition, veins on calves and ankles is what i noticed in elites, i have them too but ive seen other subelites who lack them.
Second thing i noticed was training, their training is much longer than people here think. Ive seen elites stay for 4 hours on track at a time, compared to me who rarely exceeds 3 hours and i actually train longer than other subelites i know. Elites take this to another level, they do drills, they put on loud music, more drills, walking, more drills, music still plays, music off, 400m repeats, rest, more repeats, more rest, talking with other athletes, planks, more talking and before you know it 4 hours have passed.
Third thing is, they believe in themselves and they rarely talk about politics, money, wars, etc. Most of their thinking and talking is about the body, other athletes, their friends, their girlfriends, placed they traveled for competition, etc.
You need that and good basic speed to have better running economy. And that's before you start the to put the serious work in.
And billions don't. Not to mention 70 is a very low number. Most of the elite guys are north of 75 which is a pretty big difference.
Realistically those elite guys have everything. They have high vo2maxes. They have the biomechanics to be efficient and fast. And they have the ability to train.
The gap between the 13:00 guy and 13:20 might be training, attention to recovery and so. The gap between the 13:00 and 16:00 guy is mainly genetics.
Nope. Elite distance runners don't have a very high VO2 max. They are around 70. Middle distance runners can be the same or higher.
And this isn't new information either. The best science gets lost amongst all the journalisic hyperbole.
Running Economy isn't just running form - in fact that's quite a small part of it.
Most of the heavy-hitting in running economy takes part at the cellular level, and is also strongly related to body composition/weight.
A lighter framed runner, with muscles that are efficient at utilising oxygen and clearing waste - is an economical runner.
Also, to address another point - form shouldn't be forced. You actually become less efficient when you try to utilise muscle groups that you don't actually need to use - in order to mimic what you think good form is (I see sprint coaches do this with distance runners all the time, and it looks ridiculous). You should strive to achieve good form by strengthening certain muscle groups and correcting imbalances through strength training and dynamic exercises. If done correctly, a person will naturally start to run with better form.
Nice straw man. I never said good form was pretty. I said elites, in general, share certain characteristics about how they run that non-elites, in general, do not share. Always outliers on either side of the spectrum but that’s not who we’re talking about.
I also don’t think Grant Fisher’s form is that pretty. Arm carriage is a bit weird/robotic looking. He has superb hip mechanics though. Jakob’s form is much prettier.
Sure, it's perhaps unfair to use a simple word like "pretty" to summarize your understanding of running biomechanics. But I think that in many cases - including possibly largely yours - it's not a WHOLE lot more sophisticated than that. And regardless of whether your knowledge rises above a simpleton level, is it nearly good enough to start tinkering with form? I think probably not.
And not to be a jerk, but your "sounds-pretty-non-technical" assessment of Fisher's arm carriage - "...is a bit WEIRD/robotic looking" - would seem to reinforce my general impression.
You can’t use the word “pretty” to describe good form, then call my assessment “sounds pretty non technical” when I say it’s weird looking. We are talking about the aesthetics of his form (a point which YOU initiated by use of the word “pretty”), and thus any assessment in that regard is based purely on the eye test. Doesn’t leave much room for technical jargon.
In any event, you really haven’t demonstrated that you have any qualifications or expertise in the area of biomechanics other than droning on with some word salad about ignorance as if such a rant has any substantive meaning.
Running Economy isn't just running form - in fact that's quite a small part of it.
Most of the heavy-hitting in running economy takes part at the cellular level, and is also strongly related to body composition/weight.
Incorrect. There's Bioenergetic efficiency and Biomechanical efficiency. You need to learn the difference.
Did you notice how neither I, nor the original poster, used the terms you've referred to?
I commented on the fact that the original poster cited "running economy" as the difference between elites and non-elites, and then went on to talk as though running economy was solely about running form. My intention was to point out that this wasn't the case.
P.S. If anything, my comment addresses the difference between the two concepts you've mentioned - and demonstrates that "running economy" is an umbrella term that includes both.
Incorrect. There's Bioenergetic efficiency and Biomechanical efficiency. You need to learn the difference.
Did you notice how neither I, nor the original poster, used the terms you've referred to?
I commented on the fact that the original poster cited "running economy" as the difference between elites and non-elites, and then went on to talk as though running economy was solely about running form. My intention was to point out that this wasn't the case.
P.S. If anything, my comment addresses the difference between the two concepts you've mentioned - and demonstrates that "running economy" is an umbrella term that includes both.
Your reply was just as misleading as the OP's post. I was pointing out why.