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

I have a theory too wrote:

It seems to me you keep changing your 'point' every other post.

Now you're catching on.

J.O. wrote:

Like I said before, you need some work on your reading comprehension.

It's fine. Your writing sucks.

"We can all greatly improve our power output".When you put it that way, this makes me think that "power training" is more about breaking PRs than WRs.How likely is it that Bekele or Geb or any other current world record holder will find hidden economy by adding power training to their existing training? Can Webb break World Records by discovering two-step jumping?When we speak of tomorrow's world records, there is a more important variable you are neglecting -- the athlete will be a different athlete. In 20 years, today's athletes will be completely replaced by the next generation of athletes. Records will be broken by athletes who are 5 kilos lighter than Bekele or Geb, yet can generate the same power, with the same efficiency.Do you think Usain Bolt managed to shatter existing records by some paradigm shift focus on training? I think it has more to do with Usain Bolt the athlete, rather than a better application of training.World records will be broken, because genetic variability, combined with chance, will produce an athlete with inherently more talent, discovered by a coach who can nurture that talent to its full potential.

J.O. wrote:

Because I have a very valid point, that World Records will be much faster than they are now, regardless of so called 'performance enhancing drugs' for the simple reason that we can all greatly improve our power output with the right training.

Here, I think I'm going to give "J.O." the benefit of the doubt.This was written by an imposter.

J.O wrote:

Now you're catching on.

I'm close to everything between 400m to half-marathon, inclusive. My marathon performance is significantly weaker.But you told me, the way you see it, I was missing specific power work, because I express these workouts in terms of form and economy rather than stride length. I was curious how you could see my training at all, but now that I've given you some more details, I hope you see my training differently.As a matter of fact, I can generate lots of power. It's my endurance that is weak. Unfortunately that may be due to the fact that my calves look more like Popeye, than any Kalenjin warrior, limiting my potential for efficiency improvements. My best events are middle distance, but I only run longer road races and trails.

J.O. wrote:

So which Master's record/records are you close to breaking rekrunner?

rekrunner wrote:

Here, I think I'm going to give "J.O." the benefit of the doubt.

This was written by an imposter.

J.O wrote:

Now you're catching on.

Yeah, I'd figured that out. It was funny though.

It was probably you, obviously intent on trolling this thread. Haven't you got a life of your own?

confused... wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

But I prefer to look at the issue like I said, as working on improving my form and technique, leading to improved economy, faster times, and coincidentally better strides.

This makes sense. I have no idea why J.O. is so insistent on framing his otherwise sensible ideas in terms of pure stride length. It's possible to lengthen your stride without improving form at all, or even making it worse. Making that your endpoint just unnecessarily confuses your athletes. Frame it the way Matt Fitzgerald has and you get an intuitive, coachable technique.

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

You're missing the point. Read what I actually wrote if you can be bothered, it's an aspect of training that most runners neglect.

I read what you wrote. You've taken a good idea and made it sound like a bad idea. How does solve the problem of runners neglecting that aspect of their training?

Bekele and Gebreselassie work on this stufff all the time and have done for years. Don't assume that they arent' aware of the things I am saying on this thread, these are very old ideas, older than me, even older than you.

Don't assume that in 20 years time athletes will be lighter, why would they? Bekele isn't the same build as other East Africans with the same height as him.

Bolt has obviously changes his approach to training. His transformation into a 100m runner has shocked other sprinters, especially his ability to start fast, which is a problem for tall sprinters.

Physical talent is extremely common, please don't make inane comments about genetics.

Now on the subject of muscle tension in that book I haven't read, I agree this is very important. The right muscle tension gives us a high power output generating a longer faster stride and also super economical power output. When combined with good endurance, we can do amazing running.

The most important factor here though is the endurance added to the muscle tension, because high muscle tension is easy to generate, but not to sustain. That is where World Records come from and will continue to be so in the future.

confused... wrote:

I read what you wrote. You've taken a good idea and made it sound like a bad idea. How does solve the problem of runners neglecting that aspect of their training?

We all need instruction on better training methods.

confused... wrote:

I read what you wrote. You've taken a good idea and made it sound like a bad idea. How does solve the problem of runners neglecting that aspect of their training?

Let me put it another way. My subject title is supposed to inspire the tiny minority who really care about what goes on at the top of the sport. Anyone aiming to be the best they can, needs encouragement of a more positive variety than the usual journalistic hyperbole about drugs.

Also, they might want to learn that our basic running motion is a series of jumps, and when you look at it this way, you can begin to appreciate that the length of each jump can be greatly improved.

Runners are often instructed to shorten their stride, but this is just an easy way of accomodating greater endurance at the expense of pace. This is just a cop out, an inferior way of training, denying natural talent and making that runner ordinary in comparison with much better trained runners.

Fair enough. Lord knows there's enough misinformed coaching going on out there. I just think the seemingly deliberately obtuse posts and responding to questions with snarky comments about how it "should be obvious" are counterproductive.

Letsrun believes that the only clean sub 13 performances are from kenyans and americans.

And Ethiopians. And Australian. Sub 13 isn't a magical human barrier.

really now wrote:

Letsrun believes that the only clean sub 13 performances are from kenyans and americans.

If it's older than you, than it's older than me + 2.I started making a different point. The whole concept of working on stride length sounds like great personal advice, for helping to improve personal bests.When we expand our thinking to world records, we realize that world record setting athletes like Geb and Bekele are already doing this.So the significant difference between today and future generations won't be drills to improve stride length (since Geb and Bekele are already doing it today). I think it will be inherent qualities in the future athletes giving them a superior advantage.On average, each generation is measurably taller than the previous. I don't find it so controversial to suggest that each generation will be faster than the next, simply for genetic reasons.I used weight as an example of a difference between one athlete versus the previous one, as a means to improve a power/weight ratio. It can also be height, limb length, muscle distribution, or 20 other factors. The main point for me was that the difference between two athletes from different generations will be a lot more than their ability to incorporate drills to lengthen their stride.

A tiny minority of runners will only do just enough to run faster than their rivals. Only occasionally will this produce a World Record. So the training improvements are as gradual as the performances.

If you consider that running is a procession of jumps, then you can understand that their is considerable room for improvement in this technique.

The genetics dogma is a red herring, comimg from people with very little knowledge about the subject.

I've been taking longer strides and am getting a lot of criticism as my stride rate is only 147 spm.

Okay it's 147 when running a steady pace, and when I'm running race back it's still only 151, though my stride's a lot longer.

What should I do at this point, keep working on my stride being longer?

We are all different. Lots of runners will criticize your running style, but they don't have real knowledge of biomechanics.

Consider your race and training paces, how fast are they? From this you can caluclate your average stride length. If you are not a fast runner, then obviously your stride will not be long. So yes, you do need to work on that stride length, because this can be improved much more than your NATURAL stride rate.