Stride length??

Stride length varies a lot depending on how fast you're going. Stride rate, however, does not change much at all whether you're going 5 or 7 minute mile pace. The stride rates of elites have been measured, and almost without exception, they have been right around 180 strides per minute (90 for each leg). So when you're out running, just count how many strides you're doing per minute, and if it's around 180, you're strides is probably just fine. If you're striding too many or too few times, just practice adjusting your stride rate, trying to hit 180. At first it will feel akward and uncomftorable, but if you do it often enough, it'll become more natural and your stride length will change. My stride used to be way too long, but after a few days of concentrating on keeping it shorter, it changed and felt natural and good.

Speed is a function of stride length and stride frequency. Normally, a person's stride frequency remains fairly constant whether they are jogging(or "yogging," it may be a soft "j") or running fast(idk about sprinting because your form changes); this means that in order to run faster, you must lengthen your stride. However, asking the great minds of this forum how to lengthen your stride is basically asking "How do I run faster?" Your stride will lengthen on its own as you become a faster and stronger runner. (info. from Jack Daniels)

Uh, you have it backwards sir. Stride length should remain constant, and you should adjust stride rate for pace. 180 strides per minute all the time? You must look like a spastic on your easy runs.

Actually my friend, it is you who has it backwards. Stride rate should be consistent. Slower stride rates mean more time in the air and thus more impact force which can lead to overuse injuries.

I'm watching the Athens Olympic 1500m, and the stride rates vary. When El G gets going, his stride rate increases dramatically. It is obvious from the video. In the stretch his arms and legs are moving a lot faster than they do during lap 2, but range of motion looks the same.

At very low speeds, ok, my strides are clipped. But between normal running speeds and top end my stride length (range of motion, not necessarily distance over the ground) remains constant. Might get more distance out of each stride when I'm sprinting, but the range of motion from the ankles up is still the same as when I'm running 7-minute mile pace.

p.s. Jack Daniels knows some shit, but he's not God.

take a look at the first 2 chapters of Martin and Coe on the biomechanics of distance running. It has a nice graph that outlines the changes of stride rate and length as an athlete fatigues. You can also search pubmed/medline for any research by Peter Cavanagh from Penn State.

Yeah . . . wrote:

I'm watching the Athens Olympic 1500m, and the stride rates vary. When El G gets going, his stride rate increases dramatically. It is obvious from the video. In the stretch his arms and legs are moving a lot faster than they do during lap 2, but range of motion looks the same.

At very low speeds, ok, my strides are clipped. But between normal running speeds and top end my stride length (range of motion, not necessarily distance over the ground) remains constant. Might get more distance out of each stride when I'm sprinting, but the range of motion from the ankles up is still the same as when I'm running 7-minute mile pace.

p.s. Jack Daniels knows some shit, but he's not God.

before you start proving a point that's wrong here is what you do, go out and jog slow, count your strides for one minute then start going fast (tempo pace maybe)and count your strides for one minute, come back and tell us the results.

when you're jogging or running fast the rate is about the same, the stride lenght might change a little but what mainly change is how much you travel while you're in the air, when running fast you generate more force with every pushoff, hence more oxygen consumption, therefore you travel longer in the air.

I tried this with one of my runners and it works, just as you say. She went out and counted strides, considerably less than 180. I told her to think about running 170-180. She did- reached 180. She said for the first couple of days it was awkward and she was a little sore.

Her first race, after one week, saw big improvement. She ran a PR in EVERY race this spring.

I'm not talking about a great runner. She is a young girl who went from 6:04 in the 1500 to 5:36 in 4 races, once she adjusted her stride.

Most of her problem now is having the confidence to go out fast enough- she never thought she was capable of running times like this.

Think about it, at her level, she is about 120 meters faster than she was after 2 weeks of counting strides.

Now, I'm a good coach, but I have never had a runner improve 28 seconds in 2 weeks in the middle of the season.

I guess I need to say a few things. When we sat in the Olympic stadium and counted stride rate and measured stride length for many days, instead of being able to relax and enjoy the races, we learned some good things. No questin the 1500 (and more so the 800) runners use a faster rate, but from the 3k on up to the marathon there was very little difference among events. The 800 and 1500 runners were often 200 or even higher (and they also have longer strides). We also measured when runners dropped off the pack in the longer events (and there was a definite slow down in rate and some shortening of stride length also). In addition we measured rate and length during the final lap to see what they did when they kicked. There was some increase in rate, but most of the kick came from a longer stride, which of course costs more energy, but it's time to kick and that seems to be the way to go. Puica, who won the women's 3k was the only runner who actually slowed her rate during her final 200 meter kick. I guess the thing that has always interested me the most is that in 19 years of teaching beginner (PE majors) runners I have never had one (out of about 1000) who was as fast as 180 steps per minute, yet all the well-trained runners (whether elite or just serious and not particularly elite) use that rate or faster. I assume that with enogh time spent dong it the body decides that a quicker (and usually somewhat shorter) stride is more economical and reduces the chance of impact injury. I gues the study that needs to be done is to take a group of runenrs with pretty slow rates and have them run 100 miles a week for a few months and see if the adopt a quicker, shorter stride, keep it the same or just get injured (and which get the more injuries). In a sense I can see what several different opinions are trying to explain -- length will go up during a kick (and so will rate for many runners), but I am not sure you can talk about what takes place during the kick as representative of the bulk of a race or during most training sessions, or what you do when you drop off the pace in a longer run. In the longer races it is economoy that you want to preserve, and defintely, in the shorter events there comes a time that you want speed at all costs (even if that means not so efficient, but fast when you need the speed)

Personal anecdote, for what it's worth:

Several years ago my easy runs were rarely as fast as 170 steps/min and when running a 5k I'd approach 180. After reading DRF 1st ed. I decided to experiment with a faster turnover. It was awkward at first but nowadays I have no problem hitting 180+ on a tempo and probably hit 190+ during a 5k race. My easy runs are probably mid 170. I find that I can shift gears more readily now. Although I am running faster than I was several years ago, there are many other variables such as weekly mileage that have also changed so I can't attribute my speed increase to just increased rate. What I can say is that my current stride rate seems perfectly natural now and my old rate seems like ponderous overstriding.

Also, I can always tell when my training partner is getting tired as his stride rate will become noticeably slower than mine.

stride length is bullcrap. run enough volume to make yourself a good endurance runner, stretch to prevent injury, and race like hell.....

worrying about stride length indicates your coach is not giving you enough volume/endurance training.

One thing that has helped my team is an exercise we call "walking lunges". This is part of our core strength and stability program that we do 3-4 days a week during the season and I encourage them to do this program year round. The primary goal of this specific exercise is to stretch your hip flexors with secondary goals to build upper leg strength and to increase balance skills in fatigued leg muscles.

How to do the exercise: Assume the lunge position with the shin of the front leg perpendicular to the ground and the shin of the back leg parallel to the ground. Upper body should stay fairly upright (i.e. don't bend your torso forward). You should feel a stretch in the hip of your front leg. Hold this 3-4 seconds and then walk forward into the same position with your other leg forward. Start with 10 lunges (5 of each leg forward) and build up to 30-40 yards total distance. To increase the strength component hold each position for more than 3-4 seconds.

Enjoy your training, and best wishes for a fast senior year.

Thanks everyone for the advice. On my evening run today I will try to count my strides. Have a great fourth of July!

Amen brother

grip it and rip it wrote:

stride length is bullcrap. run enough volume to make yourself a good endurance runner, stretch to prevent injury, and race like hell.....

worrying about stride length indicates your coach is not giving you enough volume/endurance training.