concerns with JK's articles

i thought JK was pretty straight-forward and concise. i assume he's considering people who are underachieving (either they're new runners or they're not as fast as they think they should be). He's answering the question - How do i get faster?

180 is the magic number and there are physiological reasons about which we aren't totally certain (from what i can tell). Daniel's proved it from 800m - marathon. Okay, it is what it is. Aim for 180. Slower runners are somewhere under 180; slower speed = lower freq and distance per stride; the two go hand in hand. Jk and Daniels say get to 180. Going over 180 won't make you faster, except at 100m-400m, which tells you something about economy of course.

So do things that develop the oxygen processing system, allowing you to have the power to hit 180 and propel yourself farther and farther with each stride. According to the distance raced, your body will propel itself a certain distance during each stride at 180. JK (and JD) is just saying, develop the ability to do this. Pretty straight-forward.

No can of worms to open up, in my opinion.

daniels did not prove 180 is the magic number. he counted the stride rate of olympic athletes in one meet. hardly proof. he took no metabolic measurements during those races to it is completely impossible to say that 180 spm is more economical than 165. unless you show me VO2 data from those runners there is no proof. like i said before, it hard to say that 180 spm makes a runner more efficient (maybe faster but at a greater energy cost) in terms of true economy. actually daniels proved sir lance's point quite well. if runners had the same stride rate from 800-marathon, than that means that distance per stride was different. so, increasing stride frequency without a corresponding stride length change may actually lead to a decrease in performance as well as economy.

i'm just saying 180 is magic because that's what every runner did. When i talked to Daniels in 2002, he said he'd done that at several elite meets and 180 was always the number. So it's magic. It's right, for some reason.

i know what you're saying about true efficiency. The same guy may use disproportionately more energy at 180 running 12:36 than at 170 and 13:00.

i think the point JK/Daniels make is that running 12:36 at 180 is more efficient than trying to run 12:36 at 170. You'd waste more energy at 170 - over-striding, etc. JK and Daniels are saying to hit 180 and the corresponding stride length. And naturally, that's what the best in the world do.

Well given the fact that many people can run at a stride frequency, although may be not for a long period of time, of 180 suggestes that it is not a function of one\'s oxygen processing system (what ever the hell that is). And I don\'t think it a function of power at least not in the strict definition of the word. I would be convinced that 180 was a magic number if you took trained runners who had stride frequencies above and below 180 and trained them to run at 180 (at fixed velocities, preferred, may be at their 5k race pace, whatever, just be sure to test them at the same velocites pre and postintervention) and if following the intervention there was a decrease in oxygen consumption (per kilometer) at that new stride frequency one could make an argument that that stride frequency was whatever, superior, more economical etc... This would be improved economy which may or may not result in improved performance. In theory it should certainly at longer distances but the fact is that the most economical runner is not always the fastest runner. Check the literature.

Okay I sound like a pr**k and I can't spell. Sorry.

He means you're an idiot

What he said wrote:

He means you're an idiot

No he didn't, and if he did, HIS was the idiotic comment, only just topped by yours. Thanks for sharing......nothing.

NONAME wrote:

Okay I sound like a pr**k and I can't spell. Sorry.

i don't think you sound like a prick - holier than thou, maybe, but i don't take offense. i understand your frustration with uneducated people. i also know that uneducated people oftentimes shed light on things that educated people tend to over think and lose sight of. That's all i'm trying to say. So i'm providing the simple outlook.

i don't know how to accurately say what i'm thinking; i don't possess the necessary phsyiological vocabulary. Basic point - i think JK is saying that a guy who runs 13:00 with a 170 or 190 stride rate would be faster if he did something in his training that 'made' him run 180. Similarly, a 32:00 guy at 170 or 190 would be faster at 180.

The things i was trying to point out were relative. Any person who thinks they can go faster AND has a stride rate substantially off of 180 can go faster if they do something to get to 180. The elites you trained who are substantially higher than 180, JK is arguing, would be faster if they did something in training to get to 180. i'd agree since Daniels documented the 180 phenomenon.

i'm saying 180 is magical because the fastest all do that, for some reason we don't yet know. Because nobody can yet explain why, it has a mystical nature to it. For now. That's all i'm saying. Once somebody uncovers the reason, it's no longer 'magical'. Anyway.

Don't get into a Germanics debate because i'll make you look silly. LOL

The idea that 180 is used by the "elites" is patently absurd. There is a significant and readily apparent variation among the population of elite runners.

Can you really expect that someone 5'4" will have the same stride turnover rate as someone 6' 3" while running the same pace?

I will concede that elites of the same size tend to stride at about the same rate or length when going the same speed as each other - but the arbitrary figure of 180 as being the determinant as to which one will win out over the other defies common sense and common experience.

perspective wrote:

The idea that 180 is used by the "elites" is patently absurd. There is a significant and readily apparent variation among the population of elite runners.

agreed. I just counted Noah Ngeny's strides in his 1000m wr and then in his near-miss mile WR behind El G-

1000: 218 strides per minute

mile : 207

180 doesn't seem so magic anymore.

(and there are countless other examples of this. I know some of the asian female marathoners have really quick turnovers, so it's not just that Ngeny is running sub 55 second 400 pace. I've seen some of those asian femals counted at over 200. On ther other hand, I've some some good marathoners counted in the 160's for their stride rate. I did count Komen right 180 in his WR 3k, but that's quite a difference between him and Ngeny and the female asian marathoners. Maybe Daniels needed a bigger sample.)

Here are some more interesting comments on the issue of stride rate vs length. Once again, here is more evidence that all elites don't use a stride rate right around 180 (many do, but there are many, many exceptions to this rule also.), and also that stride LENGTH is at least as important, if not more so, than stride rate

-------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thefinalsprint.com/wp-print.php?p=261

" Another [belief is], “The way one generally improves in distance running is by increasing turnover NOT by increasing stride length.” Actually, just the opposite is the case. By far, most progress made by runners comes from stride length improvement, not a faster stride rate.

According to Bob Glover’s book, “The Competitive Runner’s Handbook”, a study conducted by Peter Cavanaugh, Ph.D. and director of Penn State University’s Center for Locomotion Studies, shows that the stride rate of the average runner is about 5-10% slower than that of elites. But, the “average” marathoner is about 100% slower than elites (4:15ish vs. 2:10ish). So, what comprises the other 90-95% difference between them? Obviously, it is stride length.

Of course, the average runner cannot hope to catch up to the elites….except in their dreams. ;) However, Dr. Cavanaugh’s study indicates that the average runner can only hope to gain 5-10% by increasing his or her stride rate to that of elites. Thus, the “average” marathoner could hope to improve from about 4:15 to about 3:55-4:05 and the 50-minute 10k runner could look forward to improving to 45-48 minutes. Most runners hope for, and many achieve, much more improvement than that. And, biomechanically, most of it comes from stride length increase, not stride rate increase.

The following is what a few “experts” say about stride rate vs. stride length improvement.

Tim Noakes, MD, in “Lore of Running”….“With training, runners increase the length of their strides and reduce their stride frequency. Some researchers believe this optimizes running efficiency because increasing stride length is more economical than increasing stride rate.”

Martin and Coe in “Better Training for Distance Runners”….“Both stride frequency and stride length increase as we run faster, with stride length increasing more than stride frequency.”

Bob Glover in “The Competitive Runner’s Handbook”….“As you run faster, stride rate increases slightly; stride length increases even more.” and “Quicker strides are better, but not as important as longer, but controlled, strides.”

The same [person] who commented [to me] that runners improve by increasing stride rate instead of length also said”….longer strides are less efficient, and therefore, efficiency (stride rate increase, in his opinion) trumps stride length in long distance running.” The above quote from Noakes belies that opinion. As further anecdotal evidence of this, I offer the following observation:

Shortly after participating in an extensive discussion on the RWOL Beginner’s Forum in 1998 concerning stride mechanics, particularly the “need” to consciously increase stride rate to 180, I watched the NYC Marathon live on TV with a specific objective of paying attention to the elites’ stride mechanics. The leaders couldn’t have cooperated better. The three leading runners ran abreast, literally shoulder to shoulder, for 10 miles from the half way point to mile 23. They were John Kagwe of Kenya, Joseph Chebet of Kenya, and Bayo Zebedayo of Tanzania. There was plenty of opportunity to analyze their stride mechanics.

Chebet and Zebedayo, who are about the same height (I don’t know how tall), ran in lock step for the entire 10 miles. Their footfalls were precisely synchronized mile after mile. They varied only when going though aid stations. I counted their stride rate several times and it was exactly 180 every time. Kagwe’s stride rate was very noticeably slower. His footplant coincided with that of the other two every 17 strides. He was taking 16 strides for every 17 of theirs. That’s a 5.88% difference. Thus, he had a stride rate of only 169.4 and a correspondingly longer stride length….and he was a few inches shorter than the other two!

They finished 1-2-3 within 6 seconds of each other. Guess which one pulled ahead when the pack separated at mile 23 and went on to finish first? Yep, you are right. Kagwe, the shorter guy with the longer stride and slower stride rate, won in 2:08:45. I think it stands today as the 7th fastest NYCM ever run…..and he also ran one of the 6 faster ones (2:08:12) in 1997! I’m not suggesting that he won because he had a slower stride rate, but that the combination of a slower stride rate….enough slower than 180 that it would concern many runners and prompt them to work on increasing it….and longer stride was most efficient for him and didn’t handicap him. "