Then you really don't understand what Lydiard was saying. egun was right, thatsthe program.
Then you really don't understand what Lydiard was saying. egun was right, thatsthe program.
Running stride analysis should be taken in consideration and worked on early. Any good coach pays attention to this.
However I agree, the main thing that improves form in young distance runners is getting more aerobically fit by running more each season.
When I was a beginner I was an over-strider that had an inefficient drastic forward lean. I practiced on easy distance runs to improve that.
If you want to be the best your talent can be than you spend time on the little details that may only help just a bit, Or at least minimize your natural deficiencies.
Auntie Coach,
I'm sorry you never had the experience of bonding with teammates, it is far more rewarding than just running for yourself.
canuckboy wrote:
Running on Empathy wrote:Well ..... yes, but his approach is wrong.
The way to optimize (not necessarily increase) stride length is (A) firstly via verticality exercises that improve push off from the foot/ankel in coordination with the rest of the body, and then (B) let the effects of that repetition work its magic as you run with your natural gait.
In other words, do the vertical exercises in the weight room or gym as you would any other conditioning drills, then don't even think about it while you run as you normally do The improvement in your stride will occur naturally over time.
This makes perfect sense. Well thought out answer. Thank you.
I concur, No one would ever say, "oh the brain knows how you throw a baseball, just do what comes naturally." No, EVERY sport changes mechanics because we don't know how to do these things naturally. We may know how to run naturally, but that is different from training 50+ mpw or running a sub 4min mile. Those are not natural (which is why we train).
Cuing ankle extension is the wrong approach. once your body's center of mass passes over the foot, passive mechanics take over where you don't actively contract your muscles. EMG analysis supports this claim--your soleus and gastroc are stretched significantly and quickly in the loading phase and then snap back like a rubber band.
The cue that is used at St. Patrick's is "to put pressure on the ground." Not stomping on the ground, but learning to apply more force to the ground. This is how Rudisha was trained...Godspeed to you.
galvin wrote:
Then you really don't understand what Lydiard was saying. egun was right, thatsthe program.
Where did Lydiard say all that?
I concur, No one would ever say, "oh the brain knows how you throw a baseball, just do what comes naturally." No, EVERY sport changes mechanics because we don't know how to do these things naturally. We may know how to run naturally, but that is different from training 50+ mpw or running a sub 4min mile. Those are not natural (which is why we train).
Cuing ankle extension is the wrong approach. once your body's center of mass passes over the foot, passive mechanics take over where you don't actively contract your muscles. EMG analysis supports this claim--your soleus and gastroc are stretched significantly and quickly in the loading phase and then snap back like a rubber band.
The cue that is used at St. Patrick's is "to put pressure on the ground." Not stomping on the ground, but learning to apply more force to the ground. This is how Rudisha was trained...Godspeed to you.[/quote]
VAcoach, with all due respect, you are actually wrong here. The brain does know how to throw a baseball. Well sort of. Its knows how to coordinate its limbs and this is not something we have to think about. Its called the cerebellum, and it includes approximately 43 billion neurons to use to coordinate our bodies. Yes we are often uncomfortable with new skills and hence why we have trouble/why they look awkward/why they feel awkward. However once we're confident enough to do it, the coordination takes care of itself and we have to focus on the task as a whole.
Its the same with running. No one will EVER get a better stride by actively doing exercises that focus on individual parts. That's because the perfect stride is the culmination of a whole and and really the culmination of letting our brains do the work. Now I'm not saying there's not room to change an athletes stride. If they're heel strikers, change em'. If they have useless junk going on with the arms or the hands, I would change it as well. If someones stride is a piece of ass, by all means use drills, whatever you need to get that person to strike properly and efficiently, but don't think that telling them all these pointers about driving forward, big arm swing, relaxed arm swing, driving with the knees or any other BS is gonna help with their stride. Running is natural if your running relaxed and striking properly.
"Well sort of"...so you admit, in order to be a major league baseball pitcher and throw 200+ innings per year for an average of 12 years BEFORE making the majors (averaging 14 pitches per inning if you are really good), one needs to re-train the muscle sequencing in order to throw in a manner NOT natural to the 11 year old little leaguer? I am the athletic reject in my family...the only one to run in college instead of baseball, the only male not to play some level of pro ball. My dad and two brothers were minor league pitchers, and I can tell you that pitching coaches DO in fact develop individual qualities like arm slot and release points not to mention the hand mechanics of individual pitches. EVERY major league pitcher spends years developing muscle memory on these individual qualities. I would imagine there are similar traits with quarterbacks (cf tim tebow), archers, swimmers, etc.
I agree, with Vern Gambetta, that one needs to train "movements, not muscles" but this never was intended to mean that one can't change the whole by developing certain individual qualities. Developing the prerequisite strength, mobility and neuro muscular control allows for the possibility of generating new motor patterns that allow for a more efficient stride.
Is there an ideal stride? No, but this has been taken to mean that we can't know anything about what types of strides are better or worse. That simply isn't the case.
Can all athletes change their stride? I would say no. Adaptability is a key factor in training progress. Similarly, not everyone adapts well to aerobic training. Instead of developing the qualities that allow for a more efficient stride, we leave improvement to the forces of athletic darwinism, those with the natural strides that allow for efficient injury free running can progress, and those without such qualities don't. We would never take that approach to aerobic fitness...we would do what we can to train it (recognizing everyone has a limit to trainability). Our aerobic systems respond to training stimuli and so does our neuro muscular system.
I had the opportunity to spend some time in Iten with Brother Colm (though mostly with his assistant Ian Kiprono). It is possible to build a running stride. Everyone looks at a runner like Rudisha and assumes he is an outlier...maybe. But what if he is a product of an intentional system? As a coach of a very small school (HS enrollment of
I wanna know how fast you are. You clearly know more than your coach and everyone else.
I certainly think it's appropriate for a coach to help train runners to not overstride (which most athletes will train themselves to do if they just do some of their training in spikes and flats), but most form training is totally unsubstantiated bs. Which is not to say that it's theoretically impossible to consciously train a runner to have a more efficient stride. It's just that there's zero evidence that it's possible. Granted, it's very hard to test, because if you ask someone to try a different stride, they're naturally going to be less efficient at first until they've developed the neuromuscular coordination necessary for the new movement. But in the absence of ANY evidence that we know how to improve form (beyond the overstriding issue), I think it's essentially professional malpractice for coaches to meddle.
I realize that lots of elites practice conscious form manipulation, though the practice is far from universal. I chalk that up to an "anything to get an edge" mentality and plenty of spare time. If my livelihood depended on running and I had all day to train, I'd probably mess around with a lot of stuff that doesn't likely make a difference. When I consider the practices of elites significant is when a consensus has developed. If essentially every top runner (especially runners from different continents) is doing the same thing, then I think it's most likely because it works. That's not the case when it comes to form manipulation.
In a 100m form means everything. In a marathon nothing.
VAcoach, to me it seems like we're almost on the same page. I think you are a believer in minimalism as well. I like that you use pointers like "putting pressure on the ground" because that's something general enough that shouldn't cause the polarity in thinking that I often see in athletes such as myself and others.
For example: I am a tennis coach for little kids. Today I'm trying to teach one of them how to hit a back hand. I tell him that the first step to a good backhand is to step into the shot, putting your right foot forward. When he goes to hit his next shot, immediately as I predicted, he awkwardly puts his right forward, completely uncoordinated with the rest of his body. Me telling him to step into the shot has basically made him focus solely on stepping into the shot while he swings wildly at the ball, not a whole movement at all. And thus it's a question I wrestle with now of; how can I get these kids to understand the sequences of the movement while still achieving the movement as a whole. Simple keywords and demonstrations of the movement are probably best.
Now take me with this coach of mine. After each rep he would often give me feedback. Coach says: Push off at landing, drive those knees, and maintain that forward lean. Of course the next rep I go and start to actively try and lean forward or perhaps drive my knees up really high to figure out what coach wants me to do all while looking like a moron in front of the cute track chicks.
Strength might help me run faster (more so for a sprinter) , flexibility might help run faster (however the research would seem to show little evidence for the effectiveness of stretching), and neuromuscular patterns will make you run faster. But these patterns CANNOT be overcomplicated. As I see it we must encourage 2 movements:
1- a mid foot strike. And 2- a natural gait (or any other words to try and convey the natural rhythm). What more do you have to teach? What more can you teach?! Tell them to lean forward...NO. Tell them to drive off thru the ankle...NO. Tell them to swing their arms in some unnatural way that will alter the cadence...NO. This is BS that's gonna make them overly focused on one individual part of the stride.
In my mind, I think the baseball example is a little different. Throwing a knuckle ball isn't as natural as a running stride. There's some outside knowledge of ball manipulation thats comes into play.
Personally, I don't think about my stride when I run. I don't think about where my foot lands. I don't think about how my foot is flexed at impact or toe off. I don't think about my arm swing. I don't think my knee drive. I always run with a mid foot strike and the rest takes care on its own. I have never done any drills because I've always thought they're completely useless. Yet I've seen my stride on film and it would appear to me that although I'm a better than average runner at best, (that's all your gonna get Actual Canadian) my stride looks pretty darn good. All those pointers that coach told me to do seem to be working themselves out.
Once again a lengthy reply. Just passionate on this subject as it took away much of the joy from my training and left me very frustrated. It would seem to have done so for others as well.
#justrunbaby
Cheers VA
imp_form = k/distance wrote:
In a 100m form means everything. In a marathon nothing.
The logic of this is baffling...especially in light of the fact that our current WR holder and olympic champion has some of the worst mechanics of his generation. See Michael Johnson's documentary on Bolt.
VAcoach wrote:
our current WR holder and olympic champion has some of the worst mechanics of his generation
Bolt's mechanics are not that bad. Don't know why Michael Johnson is the judge of that since he had "bad form" (in the "form expert's" opinion, not mine). Just a couple weeks ago another expert on here was arguing that Bolt could smash the 400m world record because of how perfectly efficient his form is, or something.
Form matters equally at all distances... If you're 1% less efficient you'll cover the distance 1% slower. Paula Radcliffe and Priscah Jeptoo also have "bad form" - again in the "expert's" opinion not mine - which only proves my point earlier that most form critics don't know what they're talking about when they critique form from the sidelines. No one is actually able to measure efficiency, they are speculating.
team first wrote:
Auntie Coach,
I'm sorry you never had the experience of bonding with teammates, it is far more rewarding than just running for yourself.
Well, I'm not gonna talk smack here and say F U, etc since I can believe that some athletes feel the way you do. There was another post on the previous page that seemed to agree with you, so your take is probably somewhat popular.
Although nearly every runner under 24 in the US buys into the whole team thing, the best don't. Read Lear's excellent book about Webb and the Michigan team (Sub-4) as this exact issue resolves itself (spoiler: not in favor of the team concept) through the course of several months.
The first sentence in the last paragraph was 'nearly every runner'. This does not include 2 young ladies (I hesitate to mention their names as they get enough space on the board already) who had HS team elegibility, 1 in recent years and 1 currently, but who did not participate in school-sanctioned events or teams. What is most remarkable about these high-profile cases is that their specialties are distances commonly contested on the track and consequently difficult to find. This is as opposed to longer events very commonly contested on the roads. Such events were my specialty and I therefore gave nothing up by not being part ofthe school thing. They literally didn't offer anything I ran.
Also in the 1st sentence 2 paragraphs above is 'in the US'. Official school team membership is obviously not essential for a satisfying career. Just ask Haile, Kenny, Kipsang, Kimetto, hell, let's go back and say Kip Kieno or Abebe Bikila. Lack of such team participation seems to be no buzz-kill for any of the greats. Even Grant Fisher, from my reading of the RT profile, seems not to need or miss this element. Perhaps I was mislead by the mag article, but it seems the coach in the picture was not the actual school coach but hey, who cares?
Team participation is cool for those who think it is, and is not for those bummed out by it (this includes OP). Do it if you must, but realize that you can have a very satisfying experience (ask anyone over 25 - they ain't on school teams) without it. I respect those who feel competition is meaningless without it or who for whatever other reason can't imagine being without it. It's a bummer they won't being running as masters like me, but hey, if it works for you, don't fix it.
Thing is, it didn't work for me and it doesn't work for OP. The only point I wish to make is:
It IS optional.
sprint coaches very successfully work on mechanics all the time. the only coaches to generally ignore form are distance coaches. but you're going to make much improvement just by running a lot, doing tempos and shorter intervals and running them with faster people.
sloop john b wrote:
Yeah I'm from the school of thought of not messing with form at all. Studies have actually been conducted to demonstrate that athletes focusing on form improvement expend more energy than by just running naturally. If form changes do occur, they shouldn't require conscious thinking and should be the result of either increased flexibility, orthotics, or myofascial release. Anecdotally, I tried to change my form consciously in college and it 100% back fired. I ended up getting unnecessarily sore and ran like total crap.
So all the runners who have poor form shouldn't mess with it? If ya wanna go have good good ya gotta run barefoot. If you cant even run 1 mile barefoot you got bad form
Gosh, there is a lot here.
1. You may be stuck on a classic historical distance running idea- that repetition will find the most effective movement pattern for you, subconsciously. I have not heard this argument in any other sport or motor-learning environment. If the goal is to be able to produce the most force into the track in one stride (a human movement), with the most efficiency, how is this any different than throwing a baseball? Would you expect a pitcher to tell a pitching coach (or a javelin coach, for that matter) that he doesn't want to work on technique, because if he just keeps throwing, his body will subconsciously find the best option? If you can get past this hang up, you can start to see the differences in elite runners and understand their effects.
2. It is very hard to evaluate your coach's ankle extension cue/language out of context. I doubt he is saying the ankle is meant to fully extend and provide substantial power. The ankle is primarily supposed to become rigid to allow the stretch reflex of the achilles to provide vertical force passively. The foot fully extending is a follow through. The biggest impact on your ability to capture the achilles stretch reflex comes from your body's positioning and angles. When you want your levers to push, you want them aligned with the direction of force production. Accelerating--shin angles forward. Maintaining speed (or top speed)--shin angles vertical.
3. Force into the track is coming from a complex movement series. This can absolutely be honed and perfected, by focusing on one aspect at a time, in conjunction with the whole movement (the rest of which is subconscious, as you say). It take a coach who understands biomechanics basics to get this right, usually. Nobody on here is going to be able to cue you well without seeing you run. Learning about "ideal form" is unlikely to help you unless you can identify what you're doing, how it differs, and where to start making the correction.
4. Talk to your coach and see if he can explain it to you in a way you understand.
spaghettilegs wrote:
If you cant even run 1 mile barefoot you got bad form
So how fast can you run a mile barefoot?
Exquisite Corpse wrote:
4. Talk to your coach and see if he can explain it to you in a way you understand.
One would hope the fellow graduated by now.
jpld wrote:
Exquisite Corpse wrote:
4. Talk to your coach and see if he can explain it to you in a way you understand.
One would hope the fellow graduated by now.
yeah
this thread is 6 years old.. doubt this guy even runs any more, he's probably married with a kid.