Why did Mo Farah win the 10000m in London? Greater stride length than his competitors.

I only skimmed the article so I may have missed some things.

1) Doesn't look like there is any science. Looks like only math and statistics.

2) occurence and correlation do not equal causation. For all the authors know, Farah would have run faster if he had shortened his stride length.

3) I'd be willing to bet that Farah won because of energy conservation, positioning, and being in better shape.

I bet his stride length hasn't changed since he was finishing out of the medals.

Mo did have a noticeably quicker turnover than his competitors when they were kicking.

skimmer wrote:

I only skimmed the article so I may have missed some things.

1) Doesn't look like there is any science. Looks like only math and statistics.

2) occurence and correlation do not equal causation. For all the authors know, Farah would have run faster if he had shortened his stride length.

3) I'd be willing to bet that Farah won because of energy conservation, positioning, and being in better shape.

Well, I think it is pretty much irrefutable to say that the guy with the largest X won, where X=(stride length * stride frequency)

So, it would seem silly to attribute it to one component in that equation. I mean, if he had just did 25 laps of leaping from leg to leg as far as he could go, I'm guessing his frequency would drop quite a bit.

He lost the 5000. Does Edris have an even greater stride length?

It was scientifically proven that foot speed velocity is the biggest factor in winning race. Stupid to think 'stride length' has anything to do with it.

Or drugs.

FSV wrote:

It was scientifically proven that foot speed velocity is the biggest factor in winning race. Stupid to think 'stride length' has anything to do with it.

Not quite, but you're on the right track. LEG Speed Velovity is actually the sole important metric for correlating stride characteristics to running performance. Mo won because his LSV was superior.

Amateur wrote:

FSV wrote:

It was scientifically proven that foot speed velocity is the biggest factor in winning race. Stupid to think 'stride length' has anything to do with it.

Not quite, but you're on the right track. LEG Speed Velovity is actually the sole important metric for correlating stride characteristics to running performance. Mo won because his LSV was superior.

*velocity

It's Leg Speed Velocity, obviously

It would be nice to see the same analysis for the 5000 and see how it compares.

Amateur wrote:

Amateur wrote:

Not quite, but you're on the right track. LEG Speed Velovity is actually the sole important metric for correlating stride characteristics to running performance. Mo won because his LSV was superior.

*velocity

It's Leg Speed Velocity, obviously

The key, of course, is leg velocity, not leg speed. Otherwise, he might be running all over the damn place and who knows where he could end up. Probably not in first place!

Mo data needed wrote:

It would be nice to see the same analysis for the 5000 and see how it compares.

Analysing 5km worth or running that comes down to inches seems like a futile task to pin on one factor.

I bet ventolin could do it and be talking about Kipketer and Cruz before he wrapped things up.

Dissecting the details of stride length and frequency in an endurance event seems sort of silly to me. It makes sense for sprint events, but for endurance, something else is slowing you down. No matter how fast these athletes ran their last lap, it was still slower than their 400 meter personal best. So it is not the neuromuscular system that determines who wins. Obviously some other thing is the deciding factor. Enter, the Central Governor.

It all comes down to how much the brain demands that the body stops exerting itself. The physiology (cardiovascular system) is working in tandem with the neuromuscular (leg agility and efficiency), the brain is keeping track of all of this and deciding how much it will shut down the body in order to maintain adequate energy supply to itself. Simply put, Mo was in better shape, so he ran faster, and won.

Who elected or appointed this Central Governor? How does it act against your will? If your will says go faster, that's your brain saying go faster. If your will says one thing but your brain does another, then you are weak-willed and divided against yourself.

People that win races are usually visibly running easily, showing they are nowhere near their physical limits.

“Farah’s tactics and experience meant he retained the title through optimising his physical abilities,” the research team reported.

It sounds like the scientists determined that Farrah won because he ran the best.

It's astonishing to me that anyone disagrees with the central governor theory. (Unless they misunderstand it completely and think it means that you can run a 15 minute 10k if you put your mind to it.)

The only really telling thing from that analysis is that it *looks like* Farah's more even pacing allowed him to save a little something for the final 600-400.

Irrespective of LSV etc, speed does = cadence x stride length and by definition the guy who had the highest average speed over the whole race is the guy who won it.

interesting stats more because never seen such detail before

very important people realise leg length is not sole arbiter of stride length

stride length is actually a trajectory like those cannonball problems in physics

greater strength or "power" means greater muzzle velocity at take off on stride & thus greater trajectory or stride

for 2 guys of equal height or specifically leg length, the one with longer stride is more powerful from natural strength or better weight-training