Long Stride with Slow Cadence or Short Stride with Fast Cadence in distance running?

The stride you use the most over thousands of miles. That's the most efficient. But you should still try to make it more efficient.

I see some runners stooping or lowering their head when they run. That is bad form. They would have a longer stride and a quicker stride rate if they corrected that.

Can we all run with a straighter spine, what they call 'running tall'? Maybe most runners, yes.

And if you improve your training you will be more efficient and faster still.... but that's too much for one thread.

I've experimented with a higher and lower cadence, and a the higher level I have less vertical oscillation, less wasted energy, better leg spring stiffness, and a higher ratio of speed versus power.

I've been experimenting with this in my most recent training cycle. I've always managed to get some kind of minor injury during almost every training cycle I've ever done so I've been trying to see if my stride had anything to do with that. Also, I've been trying to really focus on my HR zones during training to get the best out of each of my workouts. What I noticed, is that with my old stride where I tended to have a longer stride and probably over extending and landing with a straighter knee, I was needing to move SUPER slow to keep my HR down in Z1/Z2 and was "plopping" a lot and trashing my legs. I went to a couple clinics about efficiency and started to take a closer look at some metrics I take in from my Garmin. I've tried to consciously shorten my stride and keep my cadence high and have found that my legs feel monumentally better and my slow run pace has improved while keeping my HR low.

TLDR; keeping my stride short and quick has helped a ton.

When I make a conscious effort to 'run tall' My stride feels shorter but it's actually longer.

How runners interpret their stride length by feel might not be accurate.

Consciously trying to alter stride length and rate is the wrong approach.

yeah but no wrote:

Consciously trying to alter stride length and rate is the wrong approach.

No it isn't.

higher works for me wrote:

yeah but no wrote:

Consciously trying to alter stride length and rate is the wrong approach.

No it isn't.

You are both right, and you are both wrong. Mental cues work differently for different people. Each person has to figure out what works for them.

Faster cadence results in higher running economy for any given pace because of reduced vertical displacement. This results in lower ground contact time and recruitment of smaller motor neurons that supply more oxidative muscle fibers.

It's beneficial to consciously use a slightly shorter stride with a quicker cadence during portions of easy runs. This practice reinforces the neural pathways that foster higher running economy. Lower stride frequency and lazy mechanics are a couple of reasons why many people experience poorer performances following high mileage (another reason is failure to maintain recruitment of fast twitch fibers through alactic buildups/strides and occasional efforts invoking other energy systems during high mileage periods). Lower vertical displacement also generates less impact stress, which promotes faster recovery, giving maximum effectiveness to easy runs.

redtoprunner wrote:Most parts of what defines good form are not in any kind of dispute, but I have some friends that run with short strides and some that run with long strides. I naturally tend toward a longer stride but I have always wanted to know if there are any studies or universal understandings to suggest one is universally more efficient than the other. If there is no such consensus then is there a way to tell which is better for your build or event?

you might find some answers here :

conclusion is obvious :

you have to attempt the longest stride possible for your body without falling over or under or sideways

don't worry how much your stride frequency reduces by, you will still attain faster overall speed

calculo wrote:

redtoprunner wrote:Most parts of what defines good form are not in any kind of dispute, but I have some friends that run with short strides and some that run with long strides. I naturally tend toward a longer stride but I have always wanted to know if there are any studies or universal understandings to suggest one is universally more efficient than the other. If there is no such consensus then is there a way to tell which is better for your build or event?

you might find some answers here :

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=8517374&thread=8515152#8517374

conclusion is obvious :

you have to attempt the longest stride possible for your body without falling over or under or sideways

don't worry how much your stride frequency reduces by, you will still attain faster overall speed

But it isn't always about increasing stride length. I can have a long stride and it might not always be the most efficient. In the long run (pun intended), if it isn't the most efficient it won't be the fastest since you'll burn more energy on that extra long stride.

yeah but no wrote:

Consciously trying to alter stride length and rate is the wrong approach.

Because I don't do (fill in the blank), nobody should do it - my way is the only correct and best way. [Classic example of a LetsRun response regarding r̶u̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶m̶,̶ ̶h̶e̶a̶r̶t̶ ̶r̶a̶t̶e̶, d̶i̶e̶t̶ everything]

BothRightAndWrong wrote:

higher works for me wrote:

No it isn't.

You are both right, and you are both wrong. Mental cues work differently for different people. Each person has to figure out what works for them.

No they aren’t.

yeah but no wrote:

The stride you use the most over thousands of miles. That's the most efficient. But you should still try to make it more efficient.

I see some runners stooping or lowering their head when they run. That is bad form. They would have a longer stride and a quicker stride rate if they corrected that.

Can we all run with a straighter spine, what they call 'running tall'? Maybe most runners, yes.

And if you improve your training you will be more efficient and faster still.... but that's too much for one thread.

Viren ran with a slight stoop and looked down a lot.

no

it is always about increasing stride length

learn physics

you push the stride length out as much as possible until there is noticeable deterioration in cadence/balance/propulsion/vector/etc , which means you have over-strided & your geometry is screwed

i have been thinking about this for nearly 30y since i first saw this duck-waddler somehow 19.85 in arctic weather

eventuaiting in what to most cognescenti is considered the most jaw-dropping run in track history

IMO, if not for this "fetishism" of short stride, which probably was drawn from fact he smashed his fibula before '88 trials, where he wouda made '88 team but no better than bronze in seoul, he likely adopted that nonsense duck-walk as some sort of injury-protective mechanism, but if he had let rip in atlanta with full-stride, he shouda been looking at of that nonsense ~ 2.00m one to more like 2.10m

~ 19.32 * ( 2.00/2.100^(1/6)

~ 19.16

then you try others until you find it

the key from physics is as in urology, "longer is better"

stride length is no

"koro"

nonsense

physics says expending more energy on longer stride is rubbish

the longer the strider, the quicker the time with even reduced frequency until geometry of over-striding kicks in

the energy question is nonsense

less strides is always more efficient

it always is better to stride longer until breaking point of your geometry

you aim to keep extending stride until geometry of your structure deterioriates in cadence/balance/propulsion/vector/etc

the physics is that it is nonsense to consider lengthening stride burns more energy

lengthening stride will always mean quicker if structure holds up

reductio ab absurdum :

if super growth-hormoned Kong at 300' tall, duck-waddled a 100, woud he have been slower if blasted it full stride ???