Good running form = not being lazy

I saw this site the other day and thought it made sense. I have altered my form some during the past years and wish I had not been swept up in the heel strike craze back in the 70's. I overstrided in high school when running the 800 and did not know it til I was in my late 30's and 40's and ran my high school times once again but without nearly the speed. I used to overstride in high school and also would run 56/66 for my splits in the 800. When I was an old man and could barely break 60 in the 400 ran the same 800 time with a lot less effort and ran 61/61 splits.

Great little site. Thanks for sharing it.

Makes sense (that less time on ground =faster). It explains the "180+strides per minute" attempting quicker strides usually results in less time on the ground as you try to pick up your feet more quickly.

In one of my last 5k's I was hurting pretty bad the last mile and started mentally counting the 1,2,3 2,2,3, 3,2,3 and so on count to see how many strides (steps) I could squeeze into a minute. I noticed that I ran a lot more than 180 when I was racing but in training my cadence is almost exactly 3 steps per second. When running faster, the strides feel shorter due to the fast turnover but are really longer because more ground is being covered while in the air. It is fun to show young runners this longer stride by finding a place like beach, dirt road, or snow, where they can see how much longer their stride is when they are running faster.

This is no big news to most runners on our forum but is a big deal to young runners who think faster strides are shorter. They ain't!

Silverfox wrote: I used to overstride in high school and also would run 56/66 for my splits in the 800. When I was an old man and could barely break 60 in the 400 ran the same 800 time with a lot less effort and ran 61/61 splits.

You think overstriding caused you go out too fast in an 800?

How about form when running hills? I live in the mountains and if I'm not running up a hill, i'm running down a hill. The only way i get to run on level ground is the track.

You think overstriding caused you to** go out too fast in an 800?

no, I went out to fast cause I was dumb but the overstriding wore me down more than if I would have been running fast. Good question, Archimedes. By the way, are you the expert on buoyancy??

The problem is that the author makes a leap of speculation for no reason. I was on-board that reduced ground contact time is important. Great. But then we get to this:

"I don’t think runners arrive at SGCT/MSPD and high running economy and speed by adopting the various individual elements of good running technique. I think they reduce their ground contact time and deceleration simply by trying really hard to keep running fast despite mounting fatigue in training, day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year. This repetitive exertion of will stimulates an unconscious evolutionary process whereby the runner’s neuromuscular system gradually figures out how to move his unique body to generate more speed with greater efficiency.

Here’s where I really step into the realm of speculation, but I also believe (or suspect) that the reason we don’t all start off in possession of the one great virtue of good running form is that we’re lazy. There is a part of us that doesn’t want to run—that never wants to run. When you do run, each landing of your foot represents an opportunity to rest. Most of us take that opportunity to a greater extent than is good for our running performance. We land—pause—and then push off. The best runners don’t really do that."

That's the best explanation for how we train for a low ground contact time? We try "really hard"? It would nice if the author offered some support for this statement, even if it were anectodal, but alas, all we get is an analogy to bending over to pick up boxes. He might be right for all we know, but this seems like a theory that comes out of left field.

I'd like to see a comparison of an efficient runner at different speeds. If ~180 strides per minute is optimum, then does increasing stride length, and therefore speed, reduce the ground contact time, or is it constant?

silverfox wrote:

no, I went out to fast cause I was dumb but the overstriding wore me down more than if I would have been running fast. Good question, Archimedes. By the way, are you the expert on buoyancy??

I was about to write the same thing. The whole article reads like an answer looking for a question--see the title of his book "RUN: The Mind-Body Method of Running by Feel."

I also like how he pretends that the first paragraph that you quote is not the enormous chain of speculation that it is by claiming that the 2nd quoted paragraph is speculative.

Oh, and....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__Uv7DjCHN8&feature=related

this guy aint bad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdKowrY0gdM

dingle wrote:

I also like how he pretends that the first paragraph that you quote is not the enormous chain of speculation that it is by claiming that the 2nd quoted paragraph is speculative.

True dat