Unpopular Opinion: Stride Length is More Important than Turnover

So true. I’m in my 60’s and still turnover 170-180 on regular runs but the stride length is soooooo short

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.

This is particularly noteworthy in sprint speed. There is essentially no difference in the amount of time between ground contacts for a 9.8 runner and a 10.8 runner, but the 9.8 runner will spend about 0.02 less time on each of the ~50 ground contacts.

Correlation is not causation. Of course when the ground is going behind you faster, you have to pick your foot up off it sooner or you will fall over.

10.8 and 9.8 are things most of us will never do, but if you can find a treadmill that goes that fast, try to stay on it and then think about why you failed. It may dawn on you that

a) your foot wasn't going backwards quite as fast as the treadmill when it struck, or

b) it stayed on the treadmill too long

But in neither case does jumping forward have anything to do with it. In fact sprinting is less jumping than slower running, proven by the higher cadence.

randomcoach wrote:

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.

This is particularly noteworthy in sprint speed. There is essentially no difference in the amount of time between ground contacts for a 9.8 runner and a 10.8 runner, but the 9.8 runner will spend about 0.02 less time on each of the ~50 ground contacts.

Yes and Ralph Mann has done a good job at explaining this.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Correlation is not causation. Of course when the ground is going behind you faster, you have to pick your foot up off it sooner or you will fall over.

10.8 and 9.8 are things most of us will never do, but if you can find a treadmill that goes that fast, try to stay on it and then think about why you failed. It may dawn on you that

a) your foot wasn't going backwards quite as fast as the treadmill when it struck, or

b) it stayed on the treadmill too long

But in neither case does jumping forward have anything to do with it. In fact sprinting is less jumping than slower running, proven by the higher cadence.

You are of course correct; I wasn't trying to imply there was any causation, but simply commenting in case people found it interesting.

jiggymeister wrote:

Exactly. Research shows that stride rate (cadence) is only important after running at 23 km/h (around 4:11 min/mile pace). Before that most gains will come from stride length.

So, is it more important for younger runners to develop strength to have a longer stride length rather than focusing on leg speed? Like develop cadence as a secondary thought and let the increased cadence come naturally instead of forcing the body to get used to the higher cadence?

If the above is true, are you referring to those loopy strides of the runners like Mo Farah more preferable to those runners who have an shorter stride length and a higher cadence?

You just train a lot and all of that gets better.

Longer stride length->more vertical motion=wasted energy.

Manbearpig15 wrote:

My observation from watching my kids run.

My son has a long stride, not the most impressive turnover but he's fast and wins races.

My daughter has a tiny stride with very quick turnover. She doesn't cover any ground and is basically a mid pack runner.

Let the debate begin.

Neither is important, and also both are important

Manbearpig15 wrote:

My observation from watching my kids run.

My son has a long stride, not the most impressive turnover but he's fast and wins races.

My daughter has a tiny stride with very quick turnover. She doesn't cover any ground and is basically a mid pack runner.

Let the debate begin.

The answer is NEITHER ALONE

STRIDE LENGTH is what matters

You have to understand that stride length is not a cause but an effect of power of your muscles. What is the point to try specially increase stride length if your body cannot?

Low cadence plagued my running and I had lots of small injuries. As I developed better form with at least 182 steps even at easy pace, I spent a year without injuries. I notice that most of decent guys on Strava have high cadence, there are still some fast outliers with a low cadence.

I'd say that one needs improve strength and running form, cadence and stride length are just results of you running.

https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2010/11/speed-stride-length-x-stride-frequency.html

This is silly. Obviously the person with the longest stride AND turn over wins the race. That is what separates elite from sub-elite

Sorry * quickest turn over

Does anyone know what research has been done on how sharpening, tapering and peaking affect cadence and/or stride length? I can imagine a fresh, sharp athlete gaining stride length, though I've no real evidence.

All I know if when I was young I was quite fast and quickly wore out the heels of my shoes, and now I'm old and slow but with much more wear on the front and mid-foot.

Since you obviously attend your childrens' races why don't you watch the front of the pack runners and report back if you spot a trend. Making a hypothesis from a sample size of 2 is meaningless.

Les wrote:

Since you obviously attend your childrens' races why don't you watch the front of the pack runners and report back if you spot a trend. Making a hypothesis from a sample size of 2 is meaningless.

I know what the other runners in my kids races look like. I thought maybe I could get some decent input from people on this message board.

If you want to see for yourself, go on Flotrack and watch the 2020 AAU 13 year old boys 3000m race.

vdot lover wrote:

I'd say that one needs improve strength and running form, cadence and stride length are just results of you running.

You can train cadence a bit by working on it specifically (i.e. things like running with a metronome 5% faster than your current rate). I am unaware of any useful ways to train stride length. It will increase as function of better fitness more than anything specific you do.

The elite guys have high cadence and pretty long strides. Farah might look like he is loafing along but his stride rate was like 195 when doing a 5k. That is pretty quick.

Very interesting topic to debate. I've always believed cadence is one of the most important factors when it comes to running speed. But after reading many of the comments I can absolutely see why stride length is so important and may be the deciding factor. However based on my own personal experience when I tried to lengthen my stride in an effort to "run faster" I wound up injuring myself because I turned into a horrible heel sticker and Developed Achilles tendinitis. After physical therapy and really looking at my stride on video I decided to concentrate on my cadence and not mess around with stride length. I've developed the belief that your stride lenght is what it is and you shouldn't play around with it. I also believe stride length will generally increase naturally the more you run. Once you get to a point where it's at it's maximum I would not try to push it. What is that point? I believe the foot should strike under your hip. If you're attempting to strike past the hip you're probably over striding. Which may not be a big deal in a 1500m or 5k race but once you get up over 10k, half marathon, marathon distances over striding will lead to serious injuries. I'm not as fast but now I'm running much more comfortably with njo injuries. So I would say be careful fooling around with the stride length. If you can safely increase your stride length through strength training and stretching great. Otherwise I would concentrate on cadence. I've also found when I'm tired at the end of a long run or race a consistently high cadence will pull me thru and help me to maintain my pace. Maybe it's different for every runner. For me I would say cadence is more important.