Running style (Page 2)

I am not saying that you shouldn't make adjustments.

My concern with stuff like POSE and Chi is that they make blanket statements about form, with no basis.  I have seen just as many people cause injuries by trying to do Chi or POSE as have success with it.

In my experience, there are ways to improve your natural form without making wholesale changes.  Running hills, doing drills, incorporating strides; these are all things we can do that will make us more efficient/economical, without trying to make radical changes.

Our bodies will fall into what is most efficient naturally.  It takes time, though.  Look at some of the top distance runners: arms flail, they heel strike, some of their heads bob and weave.  There is no magic formula for how one should look.

Lastly, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  If you're not having injuries, why bother changing anything?  I would say that most people worry too much about the inconsequential things, when really they would get more bang for their buck by focusing on training better.

keyone - 2008-10-14 9:17 AM

Scout7 - 2008-10-14 9:10 AM

 

Lastly, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you're not having injuries, why bother changing anything? I would say that most people worry too much about the inconsequential things, when really they would get more bang for their buck by focusing on training better.

Uh, because I was sick and tired of coming off the bike in first place, and then watching 5 or more fast chicks pass me in the run. This year only one did Every time I see someone pass me I watch them run and think what are they doing right that I am doing wrong. I think it is totally worth trying to figure that out.

I'm willing to bet that it's got less to do with changes to form, and more to do with experience and run volume.

How long have you been running Carol?  That also has a lot to do with it .......

The reason I ask that is because proper form does not come from doing drills and tweaking strides.  It comes from YEARS of running and letting your body naturally settle into the groove.

People like to point out that top runners all have turnover in the 85 - 95 range, and most are mid-foot.  The reality is that the all land differently on their foot, but they all pretty much land with their foot directly underneath them (not forward, not behind).  That is the key to injury free running and faster pacing.  And unfortunately, it is not really something you can "teach" yourself.  As Scout said, there are things you can do to improve your gait, but there really is no magic to it other than putting in the miles.

Those top runners have been running 10 - 20 years, and often in the range of 100 - 150 miles per week.  If a triathlete or amateur runner could even do half of that they would dominate their field.

It always amazes me going to help coach my kids x-country team and watching some of the parents who are pure runners and have been running since high school (or earlier).  There are 4 guys in my club who destroy me in all different distances and they are all over 40.  But they have been running for years upon years at a really high local level.  I thoroughly enjoy running with them because it makes me work at another level just to keep up!

And there is nothing wrong with that!

But you also have to realize there is no magic bean and that the biggest gains will come from actively doing the sport.

If someone has a fundamental flaw in their form like bending forward at their waist, working their arms way accross their body or overstriding then I would work with them to correct those things.  But I do not see any reason to dramatically try and change someone's gait/stride if they are not getting injured.  Too often you hear (as Jess and Kathy already mentioned) of people getting injured AFTER they try to change things when in reality, they probably didn't have to!

I can't remeber the female pro triathlete, but if you go take a look at how she runs you would wonder how she can even finish a marathon, let alone place in an IM event!  Her body just goes all over the place!

I disagree.  Drills are more about developing strength, and ingraining movements, and less about correcting flaws.  Mostly because it's hard to determine what's a flaw and what's natural.  Running is not like swimming, it's much less technique-oriented.

 I agree that running without focus is not the best.  But it will bring improvement.  However, I think that the focus in running should be on mileage, frequency and consistency.  Without those three things, all the drills in the world won't make a lick of difference.  In fact, I'll take the person with higher mileage who does no drills over the one doing drills with lower mileage every time.

From this statement, it seems to mean you trained better, even with less volume.  To me, that's the key factor, not the form stuff.

Improving running form helps, sure.  The question is how do you improve it.  My opinion is that the average person is better off focusing on just going out and getting in miles, and not worrying about cadence, or lean, or any of that.  Those things tend to sort themselves out on their own.

I'm with MikeTheBear on this. When I ramped up for my first marathon the pounding my body took from my running style would not have been sustainable - especially in my surgically repaired knee (skiing injury). I read about Pose and made the switch. It was not at all easy and my muscles screamed for several months. However, the pounding my bones and joints had been taking completely ended. I don't buy into the notion that heel striking is normal. I can go to almost any elementary school playground and see most kids running on their toes or midfoot. I can ask people to run in place and almost every person will land toes or midfoot. Go ahead try it yourself. Run in place for 5 minutes and see how your foot strikes. In addition see if you're landing stiff legged or if you are absorbing the impact more with your leg muscles. It seems many people tend to run more as a speeded up walking motion than in an efficient running style. Some are really good at it, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are as good as they could be.

I made the switch at age 47, I'm now 52 and running more than ever with no running related injuries. I think the standard heel striking method that many newer runners use causes more problems and prevents them from being able to run enough to become good runners. They beat themselves up and then run very little.

It's been done several times while having a gait analysis and you would lose that bet.

Correct.  And Jorge has also said this before (as I did earlier in the thread).  So he is not really disagreeing with that.

It matters NOT which part of your foot hits, it is where the overall contact happens in your stride.  That is what irks a lot of running coaches out there when dealing with triathletes.  They get so wrapped up in trying to land with the "correct" part of their foot because some tri coaches and shoe companies tell you that is the way to do it and lose the real goal which is to get your weight over top of your landing so you are constantly going forward.

Hillary Biscay with her side kick?

Well, 'running' in place is not at all (bio-mechanically) the same as running. It is nearly impossible to heel-strike while running in place without seriously contorting yourself. As for watching children run, I've never found this argument at all convincing and have a hard time seeing why anybody does. When children start winning marathons, then maybe. (My children are wonderful people, but imitating them to improve my performance at almost anything would be a terrible idea.)

I do agree that barefoot running can be revealing and helpful to a point. It has also been my experience (in line with what Jorge and others have said) that many many very strong runners strike heel first. More important, midfoot or forefoot striking is absolutely not "the the only way to absorb the shock", even when running barefoot. I run barefoot quite a lot (about once per week) and I still land heel first when I do. Shock is absorbed largely by (normal, not over) pronation. I don't have anything against midfoot or forefoot striking -- if it works for you, great.  It isn't for everybody.

Having said all that, I do believe that focusing on form while running is not a terrible thing. Lab tests of running economy suggest that while elite runners do typically (and unsurprisingly) have very good economy (along with, as others have pointed out, a bewildering variety of styles), even some very experienced runners have 'naturally' selected a less than optimal (for THEM) stride length, for example. Of course, most runners don't have access to these kinds of lab tests, but there is nothing wrong with experimenting and seeing what works. I think that the important lesson from a lot of this discussion is that one should not hold out some particular style as 'the' correct style and aim for that. Instead, be aware of the variables (stride length, stride rate, height of kick, etc., etc.) and play around with them and see what works best for you. Some people will naturally, without much thought, fall into very good or even optimal choices for these things either immediately or by just running for a while. But I see no reason to think that everybody will, and the lab tests that I mentioned above suggest that they won't, necessarily. There's nothing wrong with a little thinking about it, so long as you don't assume that there is the 'one true style' that you are trying to emulate.

My 2c.