What are the consequences of being a quad dominant runner? I don’t think I have these problems, but a fellow faster runner & gym-goer told me having stronger hamstrings as a runner is better for speed.
What are the consequences of being a quad dominant runner? I don’t think I have these problems, but a fellow faster runner & gym-goer told me having stronger hamstrings as a runner is better for speed.
It will limit your top speed and ability to kick effectively.
There is a study I remember coming across that suggests that the relative strength or balance of quads and hams strength is more important than absolute strength of each individually for running economy, so disproportionate strength if it exists is what would benefit from fixing. Can try to pull out that study if interested.
Yes that's very basic. You should push with your pushers in running. Your posterior chain is your gas pedal and your anterior chain is your brakes. That's why your quads hurt when you hike downhill. Do you think you can run faster with less issues with your brake pads (read, knees), or with your gas pedal? Next.
Cazzy
This post was removed.
Just thinking 'out loud' here: Quads have to elongate in perfect coordination as the hamstrings contract. Right? What could "quad dominance" do to that fine neuromuscular coordination? I mean, its not like they necessarily compete, just because one group is inherently stronger than the other. My biceps are stronger than my triceps,, but that doesn't get in the way of my swinging a hammer down. Strong quads can be an advantage on the hilly runs, but if they are fast twitch dominant, those climbs might be painful, don't you think? You have to power your giant quads forward with your adductors, then you use your glutes to pull your leg under your center of mass as you straighten your 'overstriding' hill climbing leg, using your monster quads. That's an advantage. On the downhill, those quads provide bracing action so you can keep from tumbling down. Thats got to be advantageous. If your quads and adductors have a short range of motion, then you might be hampered on the flats.
In so far as training is concerned, if you are dealing with bulky quads, I think it would make sense to restrict your weight room workouts to doing high rep strength training, and avoid excess fast twitch low rep power strengthening - which you probably have enough of anyway.
runne wrote:
There is a study I remember coming across that suggests that the relative strength or balance of quads and hams strength is more important than absolute strength of each individually for running economy, so disproportionate strength if it exists is what would benefit from fixing. Can try to pull out that study if interested.
Hi there, I'm interested.
asdflkjh wrote:
runne wrote:
There is a study I remember coming across that suggests that the relative strength or balance of quads and hams strength is more important than absolute strength of each individually for running economy, so disproportionate strength if it exists is what would benefit from fixing. Can try to pull out that study if interested.
Hi there, I'm interested.
Sure, here are some pointers:
This 2014 paper
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24476769/says that running economy (RE) depends primarily on quads/hand strength ratio (Hecc:Qcon for eccentric hams strength to concentric quads strength and Hecon:Qecc) than their absolute strength:
“ This cross-sectional analysis suggests that higher f-H:Q torque ratios, and not muscle strength per se, are associated with a lower metabolic cost of running. Therefore, runners should consider implementing hamstring exercises to improve their f-H:Q ratios.
This RW article cites the above in plain English:
https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/health/a771600/study-shows-strong-hamstrings-improve-running-economy/The ratio 0.6 for H/Q strength often shows up in papers in this area and appears to have been identified as normative in elite athletes early on in this paper:
https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/AJA10155163_990To the extent I could find, studies trying to identify correlations between H/Q imbalance and injury risk (as opposed to RE) were inconclusive (omitting links).
It’s common to have weaker hams, so the common advice is to strengthen hams to get to 0.6, but I haven’t found any evidence for RE or injury risk of overly strong hams (>> 0.6) relative to quads.
you would be running like bekele
You gotta groove and make your booty move