Has anybody out there increased their stride rate and thus improved their racing times?

gabe jennings made his stride unnaturally short take that for what its worth

Thanks guys. Just discovered this website. Heaps of useful info.

Here's another 2 cents worth on the stride rate/length issue, probably too late, but here it is. In pretty much all mammals that can run, increases in speed is gained with increased stride length. Even if you compare a cheetah between jogging slowly, to full tilt at 60 miles/hr, stride rate is much the same. This is simply because our brains learn movement patterns, and they become hard-wired in there. I'll bet if you all go out and compare your long run training pace to 10km race pace, your stride rates will not be that much different. Therefore, it makes alot of sense to re-train yourself to tolerate a higher cadence, ie, like rewiring the brain, such that a faster turnover becomes the norm. You won't lose power from your stride. Come race days down the track, you'll have more or less the same stride length, but faster turnover. For those that already have a fast turnover, and are worried about stride length, you probably run real fast anyway, so stop complaining!!!

What are "Quick Feet" drill?

It's been a while since i last posted to this thread. Still making progress in the area of cadence. After starting this whole experiment with a pitiful stride rate in the 150s, i now consistently hit 170-72 p/min., and yesterday on a shorter tempo run i was able to maintain 174. Only a few short weeks ago i struggled to maintain 168 for even 5-6 miles. Would still like to get my cadence up closer to 180, but at my age improvement comes more slowly. i think i'll need some speed drills and intervals to make the next leap. In fact, today i'm scheduled for my first interval workout in almost 2 years.

Am i still improving my times? (Part of the original question in this thread) Yes. Went from 20:29 [see earlier thread] to 20:09. Both were hilly courses, but the faster time was achieved on the hillier course and in much worse conditions — brutally hot and humid whereas the other was cool and overcast.

Two other unexpected benefits:

(1) My pacing is more even: in my last 5K my splits were 6:30, 6:30, 6:35!

(2) My Morton's toe problems are gone! Ever since H.S. the cycle has been the same: hard run/race —> blood blisters under the toenails —> blackened toenails —> lose the toenail —> grow back — repeat. But apparently all of this was simply the result of overstriding, creating a breaking action, and getting my toes slammed to the front of my shoe. That's now history.

Another thing i've learned in this is to chill for the first mile, let my body warm up, and not worry at all about cadence. For the first several weeks i was so obsessive that i would hit the desired stride rate right from the first few steps, but i've found that was unnecessary and only increased my aches and pains and chance of injury. Now i'll even stop at the end of the first mile to stretch well before continuing. That's when i start counting.

Overall this may end up being the most significant change i've ever made to my training. With the increased work load (now up to 35-40 miles p/week), the improved cadence, and improved form, i'm looking forward to the next 5K and predicting i'll run around 19:30 if i can steer clear of injury.

Stride Frequency and the Secret to Greater Speed

Q: I recall that you wrote in Training for Speed that while Ben's stride length improved only slightly over his competitive career, his stride frequency (turnover) improved dramatically and made the difference between good sprinting and world records. Since this is the opposite of traditional sprint theory (most experts say it's easier to improve stride length than frequency), what do you think is the reason that Ben was able to make these improvements?

More importantly, as a tall (6'1") 60-100 meter sprinter and football running back, what training elements should I incorporate into my program to improve my turnover? Were there special drills you used? How did the training for frequency change based on the training period (acceleration, max speed, etc.)? Were specific microcycles devoted to frequency training or was the approach more holistic? Any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Charlie Francis: You've asked an excellent and complex question that requires an extensive answer, so bear with me. I've always gone against the mainstream in believing that stride frequency is trainable. The prevalent theory is rooted in an extrapolation of the basic, unalterable fact that sprinters are separated from everyone else by the hereditary wiring of their brains that allows them to alternate muscle actions more rapidly, primarily due to their ability to shut down the antagonist muscles faster and more completely (though their contractile velocities are also faster, the difference is marginal). Many therefore believe that talent is defined by frequency and, since talent is unalterable, so must be frequency.

Clearly, though, every sprinter is capable of cycling his legs at least five times per second in the air. The problem only comes in when the sprinter hits the ground and decelerative contact forces work against him. Improvements in strength and elasticity will certainly allow the sprinter to better resist these contact forces and maintain a higher turnover rate. A cursory analysis of Ben's 100-meter running shows that, though he improved from 10.32 to 9.79 over the 100 meters, his number of strides remained constant at 46.5 steps, leading to the conclusion that all of his improvement was based on frequency.

Subtracting Ben's reaction time (the time between the gun and the first motion) of 0.132 from the overall time gives the true running time for each race. So 10.32 becomes 10.188 and 9.79 becomes 9.658. Divide each net number into 46.5 and you get a stride frequency of 4.564 SPS for 10.32 and 4.815 SPS for 9.79. Most coaches have maintained that stride length will increase as strength improves and they're right, too! Wait a second; how can they be right if Ben's stride count remained constant over the years?

This is where it gets a little more complicated because it isn't just the number of steps taken, but how those steps are distributed. Most 100 meter runners reach their peak stride frequency at about 25 to 30 meters with a very gradual decline in frequency until about 70 meters where there's a marked drop in rate as the sprinter runs out of gas and begins to "freewheel" to the finish line. The stride length increases from the start with the optimal combination of length and rate yielding top speed somewhere between 45 and 60 meters. The final few strides are usually very long but with a frequency so low that speed drops off significantly.

Now let's look at how Ben's stride distribution changed over time. As Ben's strength improved, he was able to drive out of the blocks harder and lower, driving his center of mass out farther ahead of his feet. The increased angle forced Ben's feet to the ground sooner to keep him from falling, actually shortening his first few strides. Once underway, however, the additional power caused his stride length to improve all the way to the 70-meter mark.

At this point, additional strength and efficiency allowed him to keep on driving to the finish and these "power strides" were shorter than the freewheeling strides at the final stages of his earlier races. Thus the total number of strides remained constant even though both frequency and stride length had improved.

In answer to the next part of your question, since the enhancement of all training elements improves both stride frequency and stride length, there's no need to worry about training one part at the expense of the other. But, before getting into specifics, the number one secret to greater speed is relaxation! It allows a faster and more complete shutdown of antagonists, quickening alternation cycles and permitting more force to be delivered in the desired direction with less energy consumption.

Relaxation must become second nature in every drill you do and every run you take. You may feel that you aren't generating enough force while relaxed (a perception that gets a lot of sprinters into trouble in big races), but remember, only the net force counts! The net force is the amount of force delivered in the desired direction minus the force generated by the antagonist muscle at the same moment.

For example, if, by maximum effort, you generate 100 pounds of force in the desired direction while putting out 30 pounds of force with the antagonists, you're left with 70 pounds of net force. If you completely relax and put out an easy 80 pounds of force in the desired direction and no pounds with the antagonists, you are left with 14% more net power with 62% less effort (80 verses130 pound total output)!

This simplistic example shows a colossal energy savings and it understates the case since, in reality, increases in energy expenditure are exponential, not linear. The shutting down of unwanted muscular activity also cuts down on the "background noise" that interferes with the hind brain's ability to rapidly process input. This is also why it's critical to work on skills one at a time.

Strangely, though most coaches think that only stride length can be improved, they attempt to work on both stride length and frequency simultaneously with towing or "over speed" devices. These devices are bad news! They force the athlete to land farther ahead of his center of gravity than normal, increasing the risk of injury and increasing the ground contact time even though the key to greater frequency is reduced ground contact time.

Drills are available to train frequency and stride length independently. "Quick leg drills," with very short steps done as fast as possible over a very short distance, enhance frequency. The emphasis must be on complete relaxation and rhythm. A typical workout might be four sets of six drills over 10 to 15 meters with one to two minutes recovery between reps and three to four minutes recovery between sets. These drills would be done only on pure speed training days, not with speed endurance.

Bounding and hopping drills allow for the development of maximum stride length. Workouts of this type usually consist of between 100 and 200 foot contacts in a single session. Remember that your drills must always be improving in quality, so you must make sure that you are recovered for each new workout. If your workout deteriorates, stop the workout!

A holistic approach was always used in our training cycles but we always ordered our programs to develop acceleration first (to coincide with our maximum weight phase), then maximum speed, and then speed endurance (first you need the speed, then you can worry about maintaining it).

As for your personal circumstance, assuming you're already fit, you should assess your personal strengths as a sprinter and work primarily on them. Spending too much time dealing with your weaknesses may well come under the heading of flogging a dead horse! Good luck in your training and I hope some of this is useful!

There are some good videos on running drills at this page:

http://www.momentumsports.co.uk/TtDrillsEventSp.asp

Long, but certainly worth the read. No doubt the man is a a very sharp cookie. Too bad that his intellectual gifts and coaching/mentoring gifts were compromised by his philosophy of drugs and sport.

Thanks for posting.

Where did this quote come from? I'd like to learn more about sprint training.

What quotation are you referring to? I didn't quote anyone in my own post. If your're referring to the long post / interview, Chuck Francis is the respondent, and i think the interview came from Testoterone Magazine. "Track Thug" can fill you in on the details.

To answer the original question.....

Yes, everyone has.

How many steps per minute would a 13:00min/5km runner take if he was running at 9:00min mile?

180 steps per minute at 9min pace means steps of only 39". My wife says I run like a weiner dog when I run at 180 and 9min/mile and it seems like I'm forced to chop my strides to the point of looking unnatural and feeling very inefficient.

Now at 8min miles 180 steps per min is a step length of 44", the same stride length I take when I run 9:00/mile at my usual cadence of 160 steps per. I can't seem to take a shorter stride than this because this is what I've been running at for years. When I try to take more strides per minute I end up running faster than 9min miles. Now at 8:00min pace my wife says the 180 step form looks about perfect, but not when I run slower than this (she is not an expert by any means but has watched dozens of good runners finish races and kinda knows what looks fast and efficient).

So, is the 180 step argument only relevant once you hit a certain minimum stride length? If a top performer runs at a step frequency of 180 and a 59" step length (assuming 6min/mile) and this is their economical long run pace would they consider dropping each step by 20" to maintain the 180 at 9min mile or just slow down the cadence also?