World Records will get faster and faster either with or without drugs.

coach d wrote:

J.O. wrote:

I'm not trolling, that should be rather obvious. So by the same logic, you probably are trolling.

In that case, you don't seem to know enough to get the horse in front of the cart. Someone with a long stride, and without the cardiovascular system to sustain that stride, we call a sprinter.

A longer stride in an endurance race is the result of a larger engine, not the other way around. While the ability to produce more force in the stride (from sprints, hills, or plyos) can result in improved RE, people are not faster due to concentrating on longer strides: People have longer strides because they run faster over the length of the contest.

**********************************************

"A longer stride in an endurance race is the result of a larger engine"

What?

rekrunner wrote:

Why can't we speak of improving form and economy? These are also ideas older than me.

Will changing my focus from improving form and economy, to increasing stride length, change how I train? This is my question.

It's easy to fall into the trap of running with too short a stride, because that is the easiest way to accomodate distance work. Thus, you could get slower for no apparent reason, when the reason is obvious if you consider your stride length.

However, very few posters here consider this vital factor. If you focus on stride length, over various distances, and improving this variable naturally how can you fail to improve your race times?

Of course they'll get faster. They certainly can't get slower.

Your reading comprehension is not up to scratch.

I know, since at least 4 others in this thread said the same thing. It's still fun to point out, though.

He means working on longer stride won't help. It will help for sprinters because they don't need the endurance that long distance runners do. Distance runners need an efficient cardiovascular system, and the longer stride in a distance race comes as a result of that efficiency and ability to conserve and use energy in a resourceful way. Longer strides will not improve your cardiovascular efficiency needed for long distance running success. In other words, longer strides are just side effects of people who already have a great energy conservation and use system, or a good cardiovascular support for the muscles. Because if you don't have the cardiovascular support, you won't be able to use a longer stride. Thus, a longer stride is dependent on your fitness. Your fitness is not dependent on how long your stride is.

You are focusing on totally the wrong thing, and this is the basis for your error in thinking that world records will lower simply because people will find new ways to increase their stride length. The stride isn't all there is, and training must encompass ALL areas of physical fitness to develop a great distance runner.

My point concerns other traps:- Focusing only on stride length can lead to inefficiency, over-striding, and lower times.- Attempting to reduce running performance to only one variable ignores the complexity of running.I don't necessarily disagree with what you say about stride length, but just that's it's not comprehensive. Longer strides may work, if done "naturally", or may fail, if not.Assuming you haven't read it yet, here's how Matt Fitzgerald lists 5 key elements of form he observed in elite runners:- Stiffness -- Muscles act like a stiff spring, providing elastic energy return- Compactness -- The best runners tend to make short strides at any given speed, than average runners, or a compact stride.- Ballistic Action -- Quick, power contraction of muscles, with longer relaxation- Stability -- No wasteful collapsing of joints, e.g. hips- Symmetry -- No excessive body rotation, and good left to right balanceHe then proceeds to give 12 proprioceptive cues (different things to think about while you run, one cue at a time), 6 technique drills (e.g. hopping, bounding, hill sprints), and a program of cross training exercises (for hip stabilization, core strengthening, power, and corrective strengthening) to complement running and improve these elements.I'm sure there is a lot of overlap with what he says, and what you want to say. Although I just noticed his description of "compactness" seems to contradict the idea of "longer stride lengths". He says, for the same speed, better runners tend to take smaller steps (i.e. more strides), than average runners. He says it's because they are landing correctly underneath their body, rather than in front. But, for the same race distance, they don't go at the same speed, so there is not necessarily a contradiction.You might disagree with some points, or add more, but in my opinion, this kind of multi-faceted description gives a richer, more accurate target of what "naturally improving stride lengths over various distances" means, and how to get there, resulting in longer strides, improved running economy and race times.Simply saying to "lengthen your stride" leaves me wondering, how? Shall I keep doing what I'm doing, or shall I add things to my training?

J.O. wrote:

It's easy to fall into the trap of running with too short a stride, because that is the easiest way to accomodate distance work. Thus, you could get slower for no apparent reason, when the reason is obvious if you consider your stride length.

However, very few posters here consider this vital factor. If you focus on stride length, over various distances, and improving this variable naturally how can you fail to improve your race times?

You've got this completely wrong. Trained runners don't improve their cardiovascular system, it is already maxed out by the time they stop growing, and from then on it declines with the ageing process.

Longer strides sustained for the duration of distance race come from improvements in neuromuscular coordination.

I have a theory too wrote:

I know, since at least 4 others in this thread said the same thing. It's still fun to point out, though.

I thought it was just kids or stoners who giggle at anything.

Anyway, do you actually know the meaning of the word theory, as it appears to me that you don't?

"He says, for the same speed, better runners tend to take smaller steps (i.e. more strides), than average runners. He says it's because they are landing correctly underneath their body, rather than in front"

That is complete nonsense. When we run down a steep hill then we might land with our feet slightly in front of our centre of gravity to exert a braking motion. Otherwise we don't do this. It's just another of those stupid biomechanics myths that people trot out because they are too lazy to actually think about it. Just like this overstriding nonsense.

Last week I asked you, "who runs with a stride that is too long" and you gave a silly answer, without really thinking about whether you were just repeating dogma or not.

If you run a 10k with a 7 foot stride, you will be running fast, just like John Ebuya does. Of course, stride rates and lengths vary from runner to runner, but all runners have to focus on longer strides to improve, whether they are doing this subconciously or by intelligent application of the basics of biomechanics.

I think some people do overstride. I've seen video evidence.

I did not give a silly answer. You asked silly questions (i.e. what do we mean by overstriding?; who overstrides?) I gave a clear definition of what overstriding means, then my best guess at who does it. I did not repeat any dogma, but rather applied some basic English comprehension to a modifying prefix.

If I run a 10K with a 9-foot stride, will I still be running fast, like John Ebuya? Is it just a question of focus?

All these things you think are obviously linked to "focusing on longer strides", are not always so obvious. There are traps that need to be avoided.

But your definition of overstriding doesn't make sense. The whole concept of overstriding doesn't make sense because it is unsustainable. Show me video evidence of someone overstriding all the way through a race.

Here is a typical example of what complete and utter bullshit the concept of 'overstriding' is:

http://www.runningplanet.com/training/over-striding.html

By this idiot's definition, the 'overstriding' runner is making a braking motion every time the foot lands, not only is that complete nonsense, but if it were true, how could that make the stride too long.

Pure stupidity. Typical of the idiotic crap that continually get foisted upon us by 'coaches' with no real knowledge of biomechanics.

Just run baby!

Mr. Obvious wrote:

J.O. wrote:

Training hasn't plateaued, and neither have times, you silly person.

The sport is still very young. Times will improve so far beyond your simplistic rationale that my predictions would make you spill your coffee.

Strides are getting longer and will continue to do so for a very long time.

Do you have numbers for stride lengths for various elites over time? Like what Nurmi, or Zatopek, or Yifter, or Rono had for a stride length?

***************************************************

No, I don't care to count their strides etc, because for one thing, every runner has their own unique style. And also, we only have to look at the progression of World Records to calculate average figures for stride length and stride rate which are obviously increasing.

If we simplify this to match stride length in centimeters with stride rate per minute, which often happens, albeit coincidentally, we can see that

180 x 180 = 15.25 for 5000m

185 x 185 = 14.36

190 x 190 = 13.51

195 x 195 = 13.08

200 x 200 = 12.30

Of course I have simplified the calculations to illustrate the point, and taller runners will tend to have a longer stride with a lower stride rate.

As I mentioned previously, for every 3% increase in stride length, you get a 1% increase in stride rate, because of the decreased ground contact time. So focusing on stride length is the obvious way to go.

rekrunner wrote:

I think some people do overstride. I've seen video evidence.

I've seen better than that. On a recent training run in a light layer of snow I tracked a runner ahead of me by his steps. On each step he slid forward roughly 2-3 inches consistently, clearly a result of a braking action. My own tracks didn't show this behaviour.

BTW, don't confuse a long stride with overstriding.

Yes. I agree. Overstriding doesn't make sense. It is unsustainable (or at best, uneconomical).No one with real biomechanical knowledge recommends overstriding.Whether overstriding even exists is a debate I will avoid. I prefer to think of it as a question of running economy.I'm not saying overstriding actually leads to longer strides, but rather that focusing only on longer strides, could lead to overstriding, if we try too hard to achieve this sub-goal.

J.O. wrote:

Here is a typical example of what complete and utter bullshit the concept of 'overstriding' is:

http://www.runningplanet.com/training/over-striding.html

By this idiot's definition, the 'overstriding' runner is making a braking motion every time the foot lands, not only is that complete nonsense, but if it were true, how could that make the stride too long.

Pure stupidity. Typical of the idiotic crap that continually get foisted upon us by 'coaches' with no real knowledge of biomechanics.

Noted. I'll try to be more careful.

I have a theory too wrote:

BTW, don't confuse a long stride with overstriding.

The way the word overstriding is bandied about by runners and coaches is just idiocy. What they actually mean is the exact opposite.

I have replied to a few posters here who actually believe that their stride is too long, when in fact they are running slowly, with a short stride.

I say abandon the word overstriding altogether.

Yes I agree, economy is what we seek, and this will be achieved by learning to use a longer and longer stride without altering our basic running technique.

We often hear and read runners say that a shorter quicker stride is more economical, and others say a higher back kick is more economical because it "shortens the lever" of the leg swinging forward. Neither assumption is correct biomechanically. What is more economical is the stride you practice the most.