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

trollism wrote:

What was paranoid about my post?

I just said that you don't believe that a 10 point increase in hematocrit improves performance in a physical sense, it's just a placebo.

That's like saying blood pressure medication helps people to live longer, when it fact it shortens the lifespan of people who take it.

Of course oxygen transport is important in maintaining a long stride, or any athletic performance. We only have to look at 10k times at altitude to see this.

My point that improving stride length to improve performance is rather obvious, I don't know why you would say otherwise? And I don't know why you would suggest that drugs would improve this ability?

We don't need so called performance enhancing drugs to improve stride length, we just need to focus properly on that area of training. More power and more endurance specifically with regard to maintaining a longer stride.

What's the problem?

J.O. wrote:

Of course oxygen transport is important in maintaining a long stride, or any athletic performance. We only have to look at 10k times at altitude to see this.

My point that improving stride length to improve performance is rather obvious, I don't know why you would say otherwise? And I don't know why you would suggest that drugs would improve this ability?

We don't need so called performance enhancing drugs to improve stride length, we just need to focus properly on that area of training. More power and more endurance specifically with regard to maintaining a longer stride.

What's the problem?

You're making absolutely no sense. You're telling me that oxygen transport DOES make a difference, and this can be demonstrated. But then you tell me it doesn't matter without giving a reason why. Then you say this is obvious? You're going to have to do better than that. Doesn't stride length depend on oxygen transport? If oxygen transport doesn't improve, then you can't increase your stride without making yourself more tired, which forces you to slow down.

Why do drugs not make a difference? You say this, but you don't back up your claims. You must support your position in order for me to believe what you are saying.

Jon's a bit confused over cause/effect. Given a set cadence (stride rate), stride length is affected by pace. Jon's looking at it mathematically as stride length * cadence = pace, which is all well and good but this is the real physical world. Correctly it's stride length = pace / cadence, pace is the affecting component and stride length is a result. From a training perspective, it's something everyone already does...speedwork.

someone else wrote:

It's not obvious!!

Your arguments might have some merit, but stop saying they're obvious! Your problem is that you come on here saying strides will get longer and no one knows what you mean by this, then you say it's obvious and scold us for not getting it. I, for one, am not convinced that that's all it is.

Moreover, this does not prove your point about pharmacology. Drugs will do better than just training alone. The ability to supply your muscles with oxygen is important for being able to maintain that stride. Practicing your stride does nothing for you if you can't maintain it.

Yes, this has always been my problem w/ wellnow, J.O., whatever. I like that he sometimes challenges conventional wisdom, especially the scientific explanations that revolve all around oxygen uptake. He is right, those models are not really sufficient to explain preformance (but they get studied anyway because the necessary equipment, etc. is readily available). I think J.O. is right that you have to look at, for instance, mechanical factors.

My problem is that then this is all he wants to do. His arguments end up being just as reductionistic as the one he is arguing against. I think he has some valuable things to say, I just wish it was more balanced and analytical and less polemical.

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

Muscle and tendon are very elastic. You use this elasticity to get a longer stride.

Surely that is obvious????

I have a theory too wrote:

Jon's a bit confused over cause/effect. Given a set cadence (stride rate), stride length is affected by pace. Jon's looking at it mathematically as stride length * cadence = pace, which is all well and good but this is the real physical world. Correctly it's stride length = pace / cadence, pace is the affecting component and stride length is a result. From a training perspective, it's something everyone already does...speedwork.

That is not quite correct. Yes pace helps you maintain a longer stride, but that pace comes from the stride length.

Speed work alone will not give you this. You need to be able to maintain a longer stride for long distances too, in order to make big improvements.

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

It's not reductionist thinking. Each arguement is a separate component of the big picture. Training for a longer stride as I suggest is not a reductionist way to train, that's your mitake to believe that it is. To achieve a longer stride at all paces, you are training every component involved in the whole prcess of becoming a faster runner.

rekrunner, that compactness issue is nonsense. That alone is enough to put me off buying the book. How can the best runners have a different stride at the same pace as average runners? If you look at a few average runner going at the marathon pace of the best guys, about 72 seconds per 400, the avearge guy will hold that pace for only one lap or so, the stride lengthss and stride rates will be the same. There will be a variation in styles, but the big difference is in the endurance factor.

J.O. wrote:

That is not quite correct. Yes pace helps you maintain a longer stride, but that pace comes from the stride length.

Sorry Jon, but you're wrong on this.

No, it's you who is wrong. You have to learn to maintain a longer stride to get faster. Why is that so hard for you to understand.

J.O. wrote:

No, it's you who is wrong. You have to learn to maintain a longer stride to get faster. Why is that so hard for you to understand.

He's right, guys. It really works! I know, I've tried it. And all you naysayers probably haven't so you really can't know.

I started out as a run-of-the-mill 4:08 miler (248 seconds for those of you counting). Then I PRACTICED. I did increase my stride length 3% and (unexpectedly to me) got a 1% increase in stride rate. When I ran a 3:58 I was shocked. But it all makes sense.

So, I figured why not practice some more - you know, training and all that. So I increased my stride length another 3% and again got the 1% increase in stride rate for free. What do you know, I ran a 3:49.

This stuff really works! I can't wait for next month when I'll do that practicing and training thing again - 3:40 here I come!

Wheeeeeeeee......

Hey clown. El Gerrouj worked specifically on his stride length, during his very extensive training programme.

If you did the same, you might achieve something.

El Guerrouj aims to perfect a fluid style, at pace. Kada argued that El Guerrouj’s stride length will rarely fall during a fast mile/ 1500m.

He will only slow when his stride frequency slows.

Strength exercises concentrate on all body parts. Bounding is also used and while talking about this Kada mentioned the names of Coe and Said Aouita.

Strength training is split into three parts: with weights, natural methods such as bounding and hill training.

Hill training is used to “improve the movement of arms and legs, stride and speed”.

Sessions include 10-15x250-500m.

This video of Junxia Wang shows her stride to be very quick. I have not checked her rate, but it appears to be much faster than Dibaba's. It appears to me that Wang's stride is faster than Dibaba's, considering the speed, and their slight difference in height. Therefore, Wang's stride is shorter than Dibaba's, yet I consider her form to be superior, and probably the best form that I've seen in any runner for distance events.

J.O., can you comment about this. Would you recommened to both runners to lengthen their strides to get faster? It seems to me that Dibaba would go in the direction of Wang, i.e. shorter strides, faster rate, to get faster. In fact I think that Dibaba's form is not that good, perhaps suited to a last lap kick, but not to the fastest pace over distance. I am interested in your comments, thanks.

Junxia Wang

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0IytBXo6HE

Tirunesh Dibaba

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDmDwQwujfc

It's the second time you commented on "compactness", so I guess you really don't like it.My descriptions were perhaps too brief to do them justice. (Another reason to read the book.) Compactness is mostly impacted by where the foot lands with respect to the hips. If the foot is underneath the hips, the stride is compact. If the foot is too far in front, the runner is overstriding. This costs extra energy, negatively affecting endurance, as the landing is less stable, and the runner must overcome any "braking" action. In the book, both concepts (compactness and overstriding) are less about stride length, but more about foot placement on landing. Faster runners may have the same stride length, but have more compact strides, giving them an inherent endurance advantage over slower runners at the same pace.Since you already declared your belief that overstriding doesn't exist, this point is moot, as all runners for you can only have the perfect "compact" stride -- nothing else is sustainable.But the value is not the 5 key elements of the perfect stride, even if one element is nonsense, but the practical advice that follows directly afterwards: the proprioceptive cues, the technique drills, and the cross-training exercises that help improve/perfect the stride.It's a shame for you that you are so turned off about buying/reading the book. For it was Matt that help me make any sense out of your "neuro-muscular coordination", by filling in all the missing pieces. And it was Matt who filled me in about how to focus on stride to increase stride lengths and/or stride rates, in a way that you haven't. But I'm not trying to change your opinions. As I said before, I oonly thought it would help you improve what you want to say, by not leaving out so many pieces that you think are "obvious".

J.O. wrote:

rekrunner, that compactness issue is nonsense. That alone is enough to put me off buying the book. How can the best runners have a different stride at the same pace as average runners? If you look at a few average runner going at the marathon pace of the best guys, about 72 seconds per 400, the avearge guy will hold that pace for only one lap or so, the stride lengthss and stride rates will be the same. There will be a variation in styles, but the big difference is in the endurance factor.

Different running styles. Why would Dibaba shorten her stride to get faster? That doesn't make sense. What do you mean her form is not that good? She has a beautiful stride. She and Defar can run low 29.

rekrunner wrote:

It's a shame for you that you are so turned off about buying/reading the book. For it was Matt that help me make any sense out of your "neuro-muscular coordination", by filling in all the missing pieces. And it was Matt who filled me in about how to focus on stride to increase stride lengths and/or stride rates, in a way that you haven't.

I didn't come up the the theory neuro-muscular coordination, or general relativity, or quantum physics, or any other clever theories, I think you are giving me too much credit there.

But I did tell you how to increase your stride length, a few months ago, don't you remember? I even reminded you, and asked if you had tried my suggestions. Have you forgotten that too.

Early onset dementia? I hope not, but there may be a cure soon. Lets hope so.

J.O. wrote:

I have a theory too wrote:

Jon's a bit confused over cause/effect. Given a set cadence (stride rate), stride length is affected by pace. Jon's looking at it mathematically as stride length * cadence = pace, which is all well and good but this is the real physical world. Correctly it's stride length = pace / cadence, pace is the affecting component and stride length is a result. From a training perspective, it's something everyone already does...speedwork.

That is not quite correct. Yes pace helps you maintain a longer stride, but that pace comes from the stride length.

Speed work alone will not give you this. You need to be able to maintain a longer stride for long distances too, in order to make big improvements.

That's circular reasoning. Pace depends on stride length and stride length depends on pace? Wtf are you talking about?