Stride Frequency - Racing

You sound like you are built more for the track than the road. What are your track prs?

Stryder100 wrote:

What I notice is that all the runners who were running the same pace(even those with longer legs) were taking almost exactly two strides for every one of mine.

First, the quote above simply isn't true.

Next, do some running at race pace and count your stride frequency and get back to us.

Determine your stride rate at race pace.

It is normal to have a longer stride with more powerful legs. Bekele is much shorter than Viren, and yet his stride is much longer, though he still has a good rate.

You are losing some of your potential if your rate is too low. The answer is to optimise your efficiency. Maybe you are wasting energy by bouncing up in the air, also making it difficult to increase the rate. You can keep your powerful stride, however making it more efficient will help you to get more out of it.

1:15 marathon is an average speed of roughly 10.48 miles/hour and 5:43/mile pace.

So what I will do maybe is get on a treadmill at 10.5 miles/hour and at maybe a 1% incline and then count strides/minute? I'm going to try this out.

So I went on a treadmill this afternoon and set the treadmill at different speeds and kept the incline the same (1% incline).

I did intervals of 1 minute and counted ever time my right foot hit the treadmill belt.

Set 1 - 10.5 miles/hour - 92 times

Set 2 - 10.5 miles/hour - 92 times

Set 3 - 11 miles/hour - 93 times

Set 4 - 11.5 miles/hour - 92 times

Set 5 - 12 miles/hour - 95 times

Set 6 - 12 miles/hour - 96 times

Set 7 - 12/5 miles/hour - 97 times

Set 8 - 10.5 miles/hour - 92 times

I don't know if these numbers are pretty normal. Maybe I would have different results if I'm running on the road as opposed to a treadmill.

Wow your stride rate is only 1/2 of what it should be.

Try doubling your rate.

When you get up to 184 to 192 strides per minute then that will be excellent.

I have sinking feeling that you two aren't counting a stride as the same thing.

J.R. wrote:

Wow your stride rate is only 1/2 of what it should be.

Try doubling your rate.

When you get up to 184 to 192 strides per minute then that will be excellent.

Are you serious? Read his post again.

No, he only counted when his right foot hit. Hence his stride rate is exactly where it should be.

If someone is turning over anywhere close to twice as fast as you, you're either counting wrong or the runner next to you is actually a dog. Normal stride rate for serious runners, including elites, is 180 strides (of either leg) per minute. Leo Manzano can be up near 220, but that's about the upper limit.

What a coincidence. :)

Looks pretty normal.

Stryder100 wrote:

So I went on a treadmill this afternoon and set the treadmill at different speeds and kept the incline the same (1% incline).

I did intervals of 1 minute and counted ever time my right foot hit the treadmill belt.

Set 1 - 10.5 miles/hour - 92 times

Set 2 - 10.5 miles/hour - 92 times

Set 3 - 11 miles/hour - 93 times

Set 4 - 11.5 miles/hour - 92 times

Set 5 - 12 miles/hour - 95 times

Set 6 - 12 miles/hour - 96 times

Set 7 - 12/5 miles/hour - 97 times

Set 8 - 10.5 miles/hour - 92 times

I don't know if these numbers are pretty normal. Maybe I would have different results if I'm running on the road as opposed to a treadmill.

You're over 190 at 5 minute pace, that's higher than most people.

It might be different on the road, and especially if you're tired.

Your frequency is ~180-190 foot-strikes per minute, which is very similar to a lot of people, although maybe just a bit higher. No way in the world it is 2:1 or 1:2.

One time I was running a marathon route (in training) at about the same pace (just slightly faster but minor) and was keeping 'exactly' the same stride pattern as the person next to me. We ran side-by-side for about 3 miles before the split of the marathon/half-marathon.

The interesting element is that this person I had meet at my brothers wedding so we talked a bit. This runner is being inducted into the NYRR Hall of Fame (along with Salazar), it is Miki Gorman, and she was attempting to set the women's Masters WR in the Half (she did). I think she is also the last American woman to win the NYC Marathon. The reason to connect it to this post is that I am 5'11" and she is 4'11". Yet, we were running the same frequency over about 17 or more minutes.

So, range of motion and speed are key elements. I think that your range of motion is probably no what it should be and you should be able to increase it (but not by over-striding!), drop your stride frequency and speed up a little (but you will have to adjust to the different stride length).

Yes. Stride rate is amazingly consistent among top runners despite huge variation in height and leg length.

180 steps/min is not necessarily some perfect rate to strive for.

http://sweatscience.com/the-problem-with-180-strides-per-minute-some-personal-data/

I think his stride rate is fine as it is and he should not try to change it.

Ya we may have been running on a slight downhill but it seemed like the other runners were shuffling their legs at an extremely high turnover rate...

Do you think it may be better to do this though. Shorter quicker strides to conserve energy.

If you look at cyclists, using higher rpms on an easier gear can conserve energy. Where using lower rpms and a harder gear uses more energy.

If you look at weight lifting. It's easier to move 50lbs 10 times then it is to move 500lbs 1 time.

Stryder100 wrote:

Ya we may have been running on a slight downhill but it seemed like the other runners were shuffling their legs at an extremely high turnover rate...

Do you think it may be better to do this though. Shorter quicker strides to conserve energy.

If you look at cyclists, using higher rpms on an easier gear can conserve energy. Where using lower rpms and a harder gear uses more energy.

If you look at weight lifting. It's easier to move 50lbs 10 times then it is to move 500lbs 1 time.

But none of that tells you that any arbitrarily fast turnover is better than a slower figure. Somewhere there's an optimal rate. But that depends on the person, their current condition, the distance they're running etc.

The 180 figure has become quoted as some kind of gold standard, mostly because Daniels watched a whole load of elites, measured their cadences and a lot of them were around there.

Your figures look fine - but you observation that other runners were turning over at twice that rate must be in error.

sdfasdf wrote:

Yes. Stride rate is amazingly consistent among top runners despite huge variation in height and leg length.

No, it's not.