Unpopular Opinion: Stride Length is More Important than Turnover

Manbearpig15 wrote:

My son barely races the 1500m. He's more of a 3000m/5000m/XC guy.

In one of my earlier posts I listed the strides and drills we do on a daily basis.

If I had stride length data, the first thing I would do is use cones or those mini hurdle things during strides and drills to make sure he's covering his goal stride length.

I think someone could gain 1-3% on their stride length without sacrificing turnover if they trained using the right data.

You have stride length data. Cadence and distance are both easy to measure. So how have you been using this data? How are your drills different if you know your stride length is 5.9m instead of 6m? If you can increase your stride length and maintain the same cadence (i.e. run faster), why do you care if your initial stride length is 6m or 6.1m? I have seen no evidence that training for stride length (trying to run with a 2m stride) is remotely useful. Stride length is going to be a function of fitness (i.e. when you start racing at 62s pace, your stride length will be ~2m) not something trained for explicitly.

At the elite level there might be some advantages if you can go to a lab and figure out if your ideal cadence is 180, 190 or 200 when you are running at 62s pace for optimizing speed and efficiency but even there I am not sure.

I agree with your sentiment, but there is no harm in approaching the same end goal from a different angle. I'm sure he realizes that running at X pace is the ultimate driver, but sometimes you could use tools to approach it differently.

Pacing is not that different of an idea. You can run a positive, even or negative splits and end up with the same speed as well.

What about Gabe Jennings?

If you can remember, he had what appeared to be a very short, choppy stride for a mid distance runner.

Manbearpig15 wrote:

What about Gabe Jennings?

If you can remember, he had what appeared to be a very short, choppy stride for a mid distance runner.

Which post are you referring to? I think you are replying to the wrong person.

jiggymeister wrote:

Manbearpig15 wrote:

What about Gabe Jennings?

If you can remember, he had what appeared to be a very short, choppy stride for a mid distance runner.

Which post are you referring to? I think you are replying to the wrong person.

Just asking in general. Should he have attempted to lengthen that stride?

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.

Didn't think you could beat your 2600 post, but hell...WTF?

Just for clarity...speed is a result of both cadence and stride length...both.

If you have a 'popular opinion ' 180 cadence when you are running 7 min/km then blame Daniels for your Benny Hill impersonation.

Bekele does not have the same cadence nor stride lengths in his 5km, 10km and marathon PBs

Why does this topic come up all the time? Is it so hard to understand?

Yes, I get it, you have a hard time with both math and social skills

I'd maybe explain if you'd given me any reason to tolerate the sight of you. I think everyone else is caught up already, ask them to help.

Manbearpig15 wrote:

jiggymeister wrote:

Which post are you referring to? I think you are replying to the wrong person.

Just asking in general. Should he have attempted to lengthen that stride?

I'm not qualified to answer this specific question, as I know nothing about the athlete. But according to the Sports Physiology textbook I'm slowly reading, stride length is the determinant factor in distance runners, while stride rate is important at speeds greater than 23 km/h.

That is not to say a higher stride rate is not important when running fast, because as I Am Sam states, speed is a product of both metrics (stride length & stride rate).

It's just that the speed gains made by increasing stride rate are subject to diminishing returns, whereas the potential increase in speed due to a longer stride length is marginally higher.

What if you are a slow animal but your stride length is 8 feet?

What if you are a small animal but your turnover is 250-350 cadence?

Bad Wigins wrote:

Yes, I get it, you have a hard time with both math and social skills

I'd maybe explain if you'd given me any reason to tolerate the sight of you. I think everyone else is caught up already, ask them to help.

Let me just rub in the idiotic logic you used:

At 8m/s, stride length 2 metres

At 6m/s , stride length is still 2 metres

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

Did you even go past form 1? Was that the reason for the 2,600 projection? I know to little kids those are the same as millions

Besides hill sprints anything you can do in the weight room to increase stride length? Aging has dramatically shortened my stride. it sure seems more correlated with lack of strength since i also seem to have no power going uphill anymore. i also wonder if biking can have a detrimental effect on stride length since there is no push off with cycling.

oldmanwinterd wrote:

Besides hill sprints anything you can do in the weight room to increase stride length? Aging has dramatically shortened my stride. it sure seems more correlated with lack of strength since i also seem to have no power going uphill anymore. i also wonder if biking can have a detrimental effect on stride length since there is no push off with cycling.

Deadlifts and walking lunges with weights will help. But so will stretches that work your hip flexors.

Most traditional runners stretches don’t do much for the hip flexors IMO but yoga poses like pigeon, lizard, or monkey work well for me.