Stride &/or Frequency Formula ?!

Please see this post for elucidation :

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8512913&page=1

( mods : kindly leave the threads alive for a while

these are important for history/future of running )

calculo wrote:

these are important for history/future of running )

You should really change your handle from "calculo" to "modesto".

A work of a true genius at the top of his game. But give us commoners some examples of this in action.

Eh ?

I have posted lot of formulas over the years, but I did not think the stride/frequency one was calculable, perhaps uncalculo !

It's hugely important one !!!

This is not minor argument

I only ever wish/want to get near ultimate truth of running...

Tangent Tim wrote:

A work of a true genius at the top of his game. But give us commoners some examples of this in action

Whatever you wish to think, Sir...

So you started a thread just to point at some post you posted in another thread?

Idiot.

Moron.

Pea brain.

wait so how does this work

I ran a 18:52 5000m with 167 cadence

how fast would I have run with 180

surely this was worth a 16:30+-

but because it was xc it is worth a ** 15:10**

but that's because id be running in lane two so its a 14:59

while I appreciate many of your better posts, calculo, sometimes you get a little whack.

Ok all satire aside, let's dig through this formula, see how legit it is. What is ratio of strides? ratio of one runner to another, one runner to a constant (180)? please explain

epicTCK wrote:

wait so how does this work

I ran a 18:52 5000m with 167 cadence

how fast would I have run with 180

surely this was worth a 16:30+-

but because it was xc it is worth a ** 15:10**

but that's because id be running in lane two so its a 14:59

while I appreciate many of your better posts, calculo, sometimes you get a little whack

no

you are interpreting wrong

if you run 18'52 with 1.67m stride that assumes that you are running your optimal stride in your fastest then possible time

if with improved training mostly hard weight-training & perhaps improved hip flexibility thru some gymnastics training & assuming your endurance ability can be maintained, the greater power thru weight training increases your push off the ground & thus gives greater trajectory = greater stride

if this stride is now 1.80m, the expected improvement in clocking from 18'52 with hard weight-training & some improved flexibility is

18'52 * ( 167/180 )^(1/6)

=

18'38

it's a small but not insignificant improvement but not the wild numbers you are throwing out

you were given the formula - you couda just input the numbers got the answer & make the interpretation

it is not difficult...

Oh wise one. You still haven't solved the chicken and egg riddle, do we lengthen our strides or shorten them and increase turnover?

this can be used as training aid to estimate improvements from weight-training/better flexibility

imagine you are currently a 20'00 guy over 5k & you run a fully rested 400TT in 55.0 & your coach counts the strides

say it took 220 strides

-> frequency of 220/55 = 4 strides/sec

then after months of hard weight-training with assumed maintained endurance ( very hard to do but not impossible for young improving guy ) you repeat the 400

it is very hard to replicate same time but say you get to ~ 1s of previous for 56.0

vitally important coach has counted the strides again

say it took 210 strides

-> frequency of 210/56 = 3.75 strides/sec

you now can have estimate for what your potential improvement in 5k is

20'00 * ( 3.75/4 )^(1/6)

=

19'47

so this example shows potential 13s improvement in 5k is possible when running their next ideal 5k

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Oh wise one. You still haven't solved the chicken and egg riddle, do we lengthen our strides or shorten them and increase turnover?

no

it is obvious if you bothered reading thru above & applying some thought

the most efficient running is with longest possible stride & reciprocally lowest turnover

you have to attempt to train for longest possible stride without over-striding & losing control of cadence

consciously shortening stride & increasing turnover just loses time assuming your endurance stays the same

if we have a 13'00 guy who strides 2.00m but then makes conscious effort to shorten his stride & increase turnover, he will expect to go slower from physics

say he tries to consciously shorten his stride to 1.90m but obviously has to work harder for the quicker turnover, his expected time will drift out from 13'00 to

13'00 * ( 2.00/1.90 )^(1/6)

=

13'06.70

in this case, trying to shorten stride for greater turnover will slow guy by nearly 7s

the conclusion always is that greater stride length is King & you aim every which way possible to obtain greatest possible stride length without toppling over !

But there is no really true answer. Bekele, though short exhibits the Michael Johnson/Forrest Gump short stride high turnover. While Mo has an extremely long stride. Look at the recent Great North Run, somebody analysed Mo and Jake Robertson, he reckoned for almost all of that race Jack had a more efficient stride but he can't change up to a sprint. If it was a marathon that day Jack would have won.

Also

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/11/08/the-perfect-stride

calculo wrote:

the most efficient running is with longest possible stride & reciprocally lowest turnover

the most efficient running is that allows to reach a final lower time.

A man with 180cm stride and 180 frequency runs 30'51" like a man with 175,1cm stride and 185 frequency.

Obviously, for an amateur, it's more easy to have frequency similar to a pro, than to have stride like a pro.

you do realise kennster is a total runt at 5'4 !!!

his turnover looks incredible but for a runt of 5'4 he has a huge stride as can be seen when at his track peak he was cruising thru early/middle laps in a fast race

he has both a huge stride & huge turnover

that is only reason a guy of 5'4 can run so fast

he had it both

jake may have good stride, but whatever is this "more efficient business" ???

mo though has much faster 1/2M ability as evidenced by 59'22 v 60'01pb

there is no comparison between the 2 in terms of 1/2M ability at their best so stride comparisons between the 2 are meaningless

if jake had similar pb to mo, some usefulness coud be assigned to stride comparison

the bottom line in london this year was that mo had much longer stride than the Kenyans but they all ran similar times in 10k

the conclusion was the Kenyans had much better endurance than mo but his superior strength manifested as longer stride, much less taxing running allowing him to run similar clockings & he used that saved energy better at the end to beat them in the sprint

mo's longer stride thru superior weight-training made his running far more efficient than the rest & they can be compared as similar height & clocking

in my opinoin, sal has improved mo by ~ 35s over 10k compared to what he woud have achieved if he had stayed in UK during all those years & never hooked up with sal

Zede wrote:A man with 180cm stride and 180 frequency runs 30'51" like a man with 175,1cm stride and 185 frequency

assuming both are same height & mass for validity

if the shorter strider had enough weight-training, etc to get to a 1.80cm stride & he coud maintain same endurance which is hard part, his 30'51 clocking coud theoretically improve to

30'51 * ( 175.1/180 )^(1/6)

=

30'42

calculo wrote:

Zede wrote:A man with 180cm stride and 180 frequency runs 30'51" like a man with 175,1cm stride and 185 frequency

assuming both are same height & mass for validity

if the shorter strider had enough weight-training, etc to get to a 1.80cm stride & he coud maintain same endurance which is hard part, his 30'51 clocking coud theoretically improve to

30'51 * ( 175.1/180 )^(1/6)

=

30'42

Farah 2007. Doesn't seem to have short stride, he bettered his frequency in final kick.

Bekele the same, long stride during the race, long stride + higher frequency in final lap. Better endurance.

you cannot say definitively mo had longer stride than the rest from 10y ago & definitely say anything about his kick back then

he had very impressive kick back then but races were consistently fast & he didn't have endurance to show that kick in fast races as he does nowdays

mo hadbig kick in his then12'57pb in zurich-'10 but not the endurance to use it as well as he does nowdays

the recent study of london categorically shows he has ~ 0.25m longer stride than any of of the other elite finishers

10y ago he might have had slightly longer stride than the field but perhaps not by much & definitely no way by 0.25m over field

he has had a decade to improve & 7y of hard weight-training which has definitely increased his stride from it's intrinsic meaning of trajectory

kennster as stated is runt at 5'4

he cannot help but help having huge stride for that height out of absolute necessity as without it all the turnover in the world woud got him nowhere

Whatever happened to this guy?