Thoughts on running faster (long)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
2005-11-17 10:46 AM |
Master 1791 Raleigh, North Carolina | Subject: Thoughts on running faster (long) Some thoughts...blast away at em.... So tpetersen02 got me thinking....what does it take to get faster when running???? Running speed is dependent upon only 2 things. How fast you can turn your legs over, and how long your stride is. If I want to increase my speed running, and my run speed was entirely dependent upon cadence and stride length, what combination of stride length and cadence do I need to get there??? One mile is 5280 feet. If you want to run a mile in 10 mins, you've got to cover 528 feet in 1 minute. If you are turning your legs over at 100 rpm (200 footfalls per minute), you are covering 5.28 feet between each LEFT foot strike, or 2.64 feet between EVERY foot strike. This 2.64 feet is defined as your stride length. If you plug all this into an Excel chart, you get this table… Length of Stride and how it relates to cadence and pace
*stride length is in decimal format (5.5 = 5 feet 6 inches) So what does it all mean… You can run faster by increasing your cadence without changing your stride length (I know…you’re like Duh!!!)…but the numbers behind this say…if you are running 10 min miles and have a stride of 3’3” (which equates to a 160 cadence), you drop an entire minute off your pace by increasing 20 footfalls a minute (10 rpm), and you can drop to 8 minute miles by increasing another 20 footfalls a minute. That’s 6 mins off your 5k!!!! Increasing cadence/turnover allows a runner to shorten his/her stride for a given pace. 10 min miles at 200 cadence only requires a stride length of 2’7” compared to a stride length of 3’9” at 140 cadence. A focus on increased cadence first will in the long run, make future stride length increases pay bigger dividends. Ie. to go from an 8 min mile to a 7 min mile at 160 cadence, you need to increase your stride length from 4’1” to 4’8” (7 inches total). That same increase at a 180 cadence requires an increase from 3’8” to 4’2” (6” total) It’s interesting to see the numbers behind it. Some of the numbers are crazy – I’d love to see someone out there who can run at a 240 cadence for a 5k, or someone who has a stride length of 9.4 feet. There’s a lot of physiological effort that goes into increasing stride rate or length. Which one uses less energy, I don’t know – probably depends on the person and their body dimensions/leg lengths. Most online articles I read state that the optimum foot strike frequency is in the 180 and 200 range. Regardless, I like the concept of knowing how much longer I need to lengthen my stride and how fast I need to turn my legs over to get where I want to be. |
|
2005-11-17 10:59 AM in reply to: #287030 |
Champion 8766 Evergreen, Colorado | Subject: RE: Thoughts on running faster (long) |
2005-11-17 12:48 PM in reply to: #287030 |
Regular 64 | Subject: RE: Thoughts on running faster (long) how does one prepare the heart and lungs for what the legs are doing in this case? |
2005-11-17 1:53 PM in reply to: #287030 |
Expert 1195 Shelby Twp | Subject: RE: Thoughts on running faster (long) wow, that was the most scientific breakdown of a run I have ever saw! I guess i have always been training and thought that you need to work on your turnover (im guessing in a non-scientific way thats what you are essentially saying) on your shorter fast days. And then, its hard to account for different running styles. Though if you look at say... Michael Johnson, he looked extremely efficient even though everyone said his too upright running style was wrong. I know personally my legs get more tired with longer strides, i think due to the muscle/joint pounding. but i found there is also a point where my turnover can be too fast adn get me nowhere... so maybe its just a matter of finding what actually works for you instead of so scientific?? but impressive way of figuring it out! |
2005-11-17 3:08 PM in reply to: #287204 |
Master 1791 Raleigh, North Carolina | Subject: RE: Thoughts on running faster (long) foster00 - 2005-11-17 1:48 PMhow does one prepare the heart and lungs for what the legs are doing in this case? This is a good question. I can only speak from personal experience here...as I increase cadence, I'll always become winded easier. This is normal since the body just isn't used to doing that effort...YET. When I increase cadence, I'll shorten my stride length just a bit. This gets my body used to the higher turnover, yet doesn't stress it so much that I peg the heart rate and breathing. The lungs and heart WILL adapt to the new higher cadence. When this happens, I slowly start getting back to the original stride length that I was at at the lower cadence.From a cross training standpoint, I've found that swimming has had a much greating impact on my cardio and lung fitness than has running though. Generally, its my muscles that fatigue first before the heart and lungs. |
2005-11-17 5:48 PM in reply to: #287030 |
Extreme Veteran 522 MN | Subject: RE: Thoughts on running faster (long) I have run with a guy who is short than me by about 3-4 inches yet he had probably 6" more on stride than me. Now he is a 5 1/2 minute miler for a marathon and I'm a 6 1/2 miler for 4 miles. What I found interesting is that he does not have longer legs. He has soooo much power that he sorta leaps when he runs. Like a rabbit or something. Without some major training and weight loss (not fat but muscle) I could not do it. |
|
2005-11-17 6:17 PM in reply to: #287030 |
Veteran 264 Halifax | Subject: RE: Thoughts on running faster (long) I read in one book that said, to run faster you have to make sure you feet are in contact with the ground longer.. To which I thought “why can I not walk faster then I run then?” I think your approach to running faster, jk, is too vague. There is so much more involved in running faster then just cadence and stride length. I’m not a coach or a professional so I wont go into details but I think the only way to increase you speed is to train for it, and train your entire body, what good is a long stride if your hart can’t take it. Just my thoughts. Cheers. Rice. |
2005-11-17 7:17 PM in reply to: #287030 |
Master 1989 New Jersey | Subject: RE: Thoughts on running faster (long) The magic number I've always heard is 180. Check out the elites - Tergat, Michael Johnson, who ever regardless of race distance - it's generally around 180. Which means - once you get your cadence up to that, then work on stride length. But, you can't just try to lengthen that stride - that can lead to injuries. Instead learn to run with proper form and the stride length will increase on its own. |
2005-11-17 11:38 PM in reply to: #287030 |
Champion 6627 Rochester Hills, Michigan | Subject: RE: Thoughts on running faster (long) OK, bro, bottom line for me... Just some background on cadence....The most efficient, fastest runners roll at a target 90 cadence. So, being a smart dude and all, I measure my cadence...84. So during winter treadmill workouts, I throw in cadence intervals at 90+ footfalls a second...it's painful! I think the max human cadence is probably around 95 for extended periods, assuming some level of speed. Try, once, getting on the treadmill and holding 100 cadence. Damned near impossible, and hopelessly inefficient...you're cutting strides short for the sake of cadence. Instead of focusing on stride length and cadence, I'd volunteer that stride length and cadence are symptoms, or measurements that predict speed, but not ends that you manage during training. The factors that matter the most, IMHO, are the power applied during the push, and resistance (i.e., when you apply power, how much actually ends up on the ground vs. the amount wasted inefficiently through bounce, slip, lateral motion, etc). With this as a hypothesis, to improve running speed, I'd focus on applying additional power to the equation (leveraging power gains from hills, intervals, weightlifting, etc) and minimizing resistance and wasted motion (chi running, stride and footstrike analysis, bounce minimization, etc). You improve power put to the ground, and how much of it's translated into forward motion, and either stride length or turnover will go up, guaranteed. As an aside, I've always had a corollary (hijak) question: People train for a certain pace. At this pace, your stride is a certain length. To go faster, they may need to change basic stride mechancics, upper body carriage, body lean, etc. How do you know you've hit this point, and how do you transition to the 'new, faster' stride? |
2005-11-18 1:02 AM in reply to: #287030 |
Expert 1535 Coeur D'alene, ID | Subject: RE: Thoughts on running faster (long) Here's a great article on this subject from Triathlete Magazine. Gist of the article is that shorter, quicker strides correlate to much more efficient running. I've tried it and it works, at least for me. When I first started counting my strides I was at about 76-80 one-foot strikes per minute, or 152-160 total. I shortened my stride and took the cadence up to about 88-92, or 176-184, and sometimes even higher, and I was pretty amazed at how much easier it was to keep a faster pace for a longer time. At the end of my runs I wasn't nearly as tired and the next day soreness wasn't an issue either. The key was to shorten my stride, not keep it the same length and try to up the cadence. Worked for me, might work for others too. OK, the link didn't work so I'll just paste the article in here. Stride rate: What gets measured gets done The longer the foot and ground contact time the greater amount of increase in vertical velocity (upward movement). This increase produces a decrease in horizontal velocity (forward movement), and this corresponds with protracted ground and foot contact times, thereby, slowing the stride rate, increasing vertical displacement and braking force. A runner wants forward movement--not upward--and a purposeful effort should be made to achieve this result. Braking force is the product of overstriding where the lower limbs land in front of the pelvis, thus slowing the cadence. To mimic this sensation, and to hopefully implement what not to do, take a very long step forward with your right foot from a standing position. You will note when your foot hits the ground that there’s a pronounced “stopping” of movement. Now, stand with feet together and take short step, keeping the pelvis over the right foot as it moves forward. Note how un-weighted and neutral your body feels. Also, the left foot is freely ready to swing forward. That’s what it feels like to run efficiently with the body neutrally balanced over the pelvis as the spine and head remain unweighted during each foot strike. This characteristic of good runners can be learned progressively by most triathletes seeking to improve running economy. Stride rates in the low 80s or less are often found in novice runners. Stride rates in the low to mid-90s are typical of skilled runners and triathletes. World-class runners from 5,000 meters to the marathon demonstrate stride rates of 90 to 95 right-foot contacts per minute (180 to 190 total for both feet). To be sure, there are many styles of runners, but one common shared characteristic among top performers is stride rate. And triathletes are no different. Bear in mind that the stride rate (at any running speed) should be very close to the same tempo. Whether warming up, at race pace or over a long-distance endurance run. Your running stride rate, cadence, frequency of stride needs to remain between 90 to 95 right-foot contacts every minute. And to achieve this, the length of stride is shortened when running slower and lengthen when running at race pace. In elite distance runners, foot-strike contact time with the ground is very brief--just a few milliseconds of lightly placed, quick, catlike steps. And the foot contacts the ground under the pelvis with a mid-sole to forefoot (not the heel). With these images in mind here are a few measuring techniques to help you achieve a more economical stride rate. Prancing 4 x 4 x 20 meters It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, a coach or even a running guru with all sorts of imaginative running drills to develop stride rate competency of good running form. And there’s no question better runners simply run with faster cadences. It’s that simple. And learning how to monitor, develop and maintain optimal running cadence is simple to execute as well. Coach Evans was the triathlon’s first professional coach beginning in 1982. He coaches triathletes individually from his offices in Menlo Park, Calif., and can be found at www. evanscoaching.com. In addition, Coach Evans was the 1989-90 USA Triathlon Head Coach and is the author most recently of Triathletes Edge and Endurance Athletes Edge. He is the inventor and patent holder of the SPEEDO SwimFoil and Contour training paddles. This article originally appeared in the March 2005 issue of Triathlete magazine, available at all Borders and Barnes and Nobles bookstores plus your local triathlon shop. Edited by Flyboy 2005-11-18 1:09 AM |
2005-11-18 9:04 AM in reply to: #287030 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Thoughts on running faster (long) Everytime I look at your chart my eyes glaze over. |
|
2005-11-18 10:01 AM in reply to: #287030 |
Master 1791 Raleigh, North Carolina | Subject: RE: Thoughts on running faster (long) Additional thoughts.... Higher cadence is a good thing. But I don't believe that 90 should be everyone's magic number. Body dimensions and physique must play some type of role in determining your ideal cadence. Assuming our fitness levels are roughly equivalent and we are running the same pace - my coworker has a 30" inseam. I've got a 33" inseam. It costs him less energy to turn his legs over than it costs me. I'm moving more mass than he is. But, he's also got a shorter stride length than I do. I go a little bit further every step. Should both my buddy and I be working on obtaining that same 90 cadence or would you expect that a shorter legged person should be able to obtain higher levels of turnover? I keep thinking about our four legged friends that chase us from time to time on the bike. Some of those little *** dogs have short little stubby legs yet they are a blur when they're chasing you because they can turn them over so fast. A big dog running at the same speed has longer legs and can chase you at the same speed yet his legs are turning over slower. Their cadence and stride length is different yet ideal for their body types and dimensions. |
2005-11-18 10:43 AM in reply to: #287942 |
Lethbridge, Alberta | Subject: RE: Thoughts on running faster (long) The mechanics of a dog's run are very different from that of a human. I'm not 100% sure about this, but the explanation that made sense to me dealt with the benefit of rebound. No matter what size you and your friend are, the connective tissues in your feet stretch and lose their rebound at about the same rate. Your step has to be fast enough to use the energy, stored on landing, during toe-off to be most efficient. A turnover faster than that doesn't provide more benefit though, so the magic number is right around 180 to 190 steps per minute. Edited by Micawber 2005-11-18 10:53 AM |
2005-11-18 11:56 AM in reply to: #287651 |
Pro 6582 Melbourne FL | Subject: RE: Thoughts on running faster (long) This is a good thread, at least I'm not the only excel geek in the world! I started using a HR monitor for training in the last 8 weeks or so and have for the first time in my life committed to serious extended off-season base training! Above all, I've learned that efficiency during the run is the key, just like Rick (rkreuser) stated. Just changing stride rate or length can be detrimental. I find that when my HR gets at or above my Z2, I can drop it 3-7 bpm by increasing my cadence and shortening my stride (to ~ 85 / min), relaxing my body, using the core and hips to pull my legs up, and gravity (leaning) to assist with the forward movement. Basically my form is going to crap and all this above is the Chi/Evolution/Pose running methodology. Just increasing cadence or reducing stride length without attention to the whole mechanics usually just increases my HR even more. Also next time you do a bike-run brick take notice of your spin rate. It should be right about the same rate as your run cadence. When you start your run, the cadence should be very close to the bike cadence with the stride length pretty close to the pedal spacing. Within a 1/4 mile my stride length increases to the desired pace but my cadence is pretty much the same. I learned all this and a whole lot more last spring before my first tri from the folks here on BT, the following link was posted, http://www.t3coaching.com/Articles/t3_infamousRUN.htm. So thoughts on running faster; be efficient, use Run-Walk if needed, base train with the correct cadence for all type of runs (lsd, intervals, etc), Ride the bike at the same cadence (~90) as you should be running, etc. Don The more I learn about all this, the more I get confused! |
2005-11-18 1:20 PM in reply to: #288056 |
Master 1791 Raleigh, North Carolina | Subject: RE: Thoughts on running faster (long) Yeah...you gotta watch that Rick guy. He's too damn fast for me. He must be doing something right. |
2005-11-18 7:15 PM in reply to: #287030 |
Veteran 267 Washington DC | Subject: RE: Thoughts on running faster (long) Every runner should learn to run with a turnover of 90 stride cycles per minute or higher. This enables optimal use of elastic recoil, minimizes the need for vertical displacement, and reduces recruitment of fast twitch muscle fibers. Faster and shorter runners may do better with turnover in the high 90s, but every runner I have tested (hundreds) is more economical with a turnover of at least 90 once they have learned correct techniques. More information is available in my book The Triathlete's Guide to Run Training and my video about running technique, Evolution Running: Run Faster with Fewer Injuries. Both are available at www.Fitness-Concepts.com Go Hokies, Ken |
|
2005-11-18 8:24 PM in reply to: #288457 |
Master 1791 Raleigh, North Carolina | Subject: RE: Thoughts on running faster (long) |