Unpopular Opinion: Stride Length is More Important than Turnover

Bad Wigins wrote:

If you are sprinting 8 m/s (50 second 400 pace) with a turnover of 4 steps per second then your stride is 2 meters.

If you are running a mile at 6 m/s (66.6 second 400 pace) with a turnover of 3 steps per second then your stride is still 2 meters.

Stride length is mostly a function of how fast you are going.

The exception is actually Kenenisa Bekele. He maintains the same stride length at all paces on the flat and only changes his stride rate.

hold the press wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

If you are sprinting 8 m/s (50 second 400 pace) with a turnover of 4 steps per second then your stride is 2 meters.

If you are running a mile at 6 m/s (66.6 second 400 pace) with a turnover of 3 steps per second then your stride is still 2 meters.

Stride length is mostly a function of how fast you are going.

The exception is actually Kenenisa Bekele. He maintains the same stride length at all paces on the flat and only changes his stride rate.

Poster, you just explained how & why K. Bekele was out-kicked by H. el Guerrouj, 2004 Olympics 5000m final.

Star wrote:

889 wrote:

On the whole this is correct, but if you look at world class pro distance runners, the ability to find another gear by turnover will win races usually.

This video shows this. Jakob needs another gear and then he will not be beat, IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxBB_9EneNM

The equivalent of another gear is longer stride length.

Maybe you meant the ability to hit a higher RPM by turnover.

Yes, more rpm by turnover. Usually once your stride length is maxed out, being able to turn your legs over faster will give you that kick to win, or sometimes not just letting your cadence fall off at the end will do it too.

This is something the big Jakob don't have yet, most likely it's from running to much TH steady work, IMO. He works on turning over faster that last 100/50, he will be unbeatable.

truth be told. wrote:

A big wheel covers more distance more easily than a small wheel.

Incorrect. It just depends. There's reasons we have different wheel sizes.

Well...... wrote:

truth be told. wrote:

A big wheel covers more distance more easily than a small wheel.

Incorrect. It just depends. There's reasons we have different wheel sizes.

Well, F1 cars have little wheels compared to a mac truck. ;) Turnover rates once you are maxed out for your stride length, is the only way to run faster.

889 wrote:

Well...... wrote:

Incorrect. It just depends. There's reasons we have different wheel sizes.

Well, F1 cars have little wheels compared to a mac truck. ;) Turnover rates once you are maxed out for your stride length, is the only way to run faster.

There is no such thing as maximum stride length. The greater the force your big toe on each foot pushes against ground while sprinting or long jumping or triple jumping, greater is potential stride length.

otter wrote:

Those are the two factors that determine speed. The problem becomes when an athlete attempts to length their stride and ends up over striding and landing on the backs of their heels.

It is telling how long a runner spends on the ground.

^

You’re wrong end of discussion.

I am 6 5, and get so fed up with armchair experts telling me i should have the same cadence as a short guy.

truth be told. wrote:

A big wheel covers more distance more easily than a small wheel.

+1, this is why all the greatest distance runners are so tall.

loopy wrote:

truth be told. wrote:

A big wheel covers more distance more easily than a small wheel.

+1, this is why all the greatest distance runners are so tall.

Like Bekele at 5ft5 1.65m ? oO

Well...... wrote:

loopy wrote:

+1, this is why all the greatest distance runners are so tall.

Like Bekele at 5ft5 1.65m ? oO

Yeah that was my point. Sarcasm, google it.

loopy wrote:

Well...... wrote:

Like Bekele at 5ft5 1.65m ? oO

Yeah that was my point. Sarcasm, google it.

xD

123 5 wrote:

loopy wrote:

Yeah that was my point. Sarcasm, google it.

xD

Sarcasm just doesn't work on LR, too many fruitcakes :D

My stride rate is 25-30 strides less per minute since surgery. My stride length is about the same. I haven't been able to increase it without losing my balance. I'm 68 and am very stiff too.

Can't believe how many people are disagreeing with this. It is obviously correct in general that stride length is the determining factor, along with ground contact time (springiness).

The majority of good runners running at a certain pace have roughly the same cadence, around 180 steps per minute for lactate threshold pace for example. But an elite athlete is covering way more ground with that same cadence as a good but far from elite runner.

Now of course cadence varies according to pace: to sprint or run quickly up a hill one obviously has to increase cadence. And of course there are individual variations: women generally have a higher cadence at given paces due to less power; taller runners will naturally have slightly lower cadence at a given pace than smaller runners, etc. And of course a not-so-good runner may run with a too fast or too slow cadencevst a given pace. And of course there is a range and there are outliers. But none of this changes the fact that stride length and ground contact time are certainly far more important than cadence in distinguishing two good runners, one faster than the other.

Here is an article on one study supporting this, but this is all well known both anecdotally and academically.

https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20831485/kenyans-cadence-and-ground-contact-time/

Man I hope you’re not a coach because you sound like a real idiot. I always hear parents yelling from the sidelines “big steps” or something similar and I want to slap them

600yd/600m man wrote:

hold the press wrote:

The exception is actually Kenenisa Bekele. He maintains the same stride length at all paces on the flat and only changes his stride rate.

Poster, you just explained how & why K. Bekele was out-kicked by H. el Guerrouj, 2004 Olympics 5000m final.

That makes no sense. Did you even read my post?

I always thought leg speed velocity was the most important factor in running performance?