Running to music.... (Page 2)

 'Tis true!  Every RIGHT foot striking to a 180 bpm mix would make it 360 footstrikes per minute.  Much too fast for me.

My natural cadence is ~87-90.  I typically run to a beat whether it is Podrunner or a metronome.  It keeps my cadence from slowing down when I fatigue.  When my cadence slows down I tend to overstride and get poor form.  As I get more miles under my feet, I may be able to discard this method and run naturally at this cadence all the time.

It is a measure of lots of variables, but I can say with certainty that if your heel (or for that matter your toe of midfoot--but that's not very common) is hitting in front of your center of gravity, then you're brakeing. And it's my experience, and what I've been taught by some pretty smart people that if your cadence is low, something isn't right.

As I said before, heel striking isn't necessarily bad, as long as it's a result of dorsiflexion of your foot *and* you're striking under your center of gravity. If you're doing both of those things, then I'm cool with heel striking (or touching...whatever).

No, increasing your cadence increases your speed assuming the same stride length.

Because she said (which is not true):

I stated that there are two ways to increase speed.  Yes, to balance out one you will limit the amount of the other.  Cadence has every little bit to do with speed.  Perhaps I misinterpreted the "don't apply much force" comment though.

Most people don't decrease their stride length when they increase their cadence.  Then they wonder why they are more tired when they increase their cadence.

Fine, then perhaps I worded it unclearly. I think we're saying the same thing.

The point about force is an interesting one...check it:

If I increase my stride I have to increase the force I apply with each foot strike to maintain a constant pace; if I keep force constant when I increase stride length, I'm gonna go slower.

Conversely, if I increase my stride rate, I can maintain the same speed with less force per foot strike.

So, all other things being equal, is it easy to lift 1000kg total with a few reps, or to spread the load out with more reps? I'm thinking benching 10x100kg is easier than 1x1000kg.

Also, with less force per foot strike, your imparting less peak force on your ankles, knees and hips. And that's better, right?

As to the issue of force, This Article may be helpful.

Essentially, it's the force applied to the ground that determines speed.  Faster runners tend to have higher turnover rates because they have to.  When running faster, they have to swing their legs around faster to keep up.

Thank you, oh Running Guru

It's the efficient application of force that determines speed.

I could stomp on the ground until my legs give out and not move forward, for instance.

Chicken/egg.

Is their turnover faster as a result of increased force, or is the increase in force the result of the faster turnover.

You wouldn't be running, either, so stomping on the ground has no real bearing on this conversation, or the article.

Wait, wasn't this about running with music?

Oh, then I've got nothing to add anymore as I don't believe in that ........ carry on.

It's an extreme example. The point is you can apply a whole lot of force, but if you don't do it efficiently, you're not going to go very fast.

Check out any Y pool anywhere and you'll see that concept demonstrated beautifully. And the same laws of physics that apply to swimming apply to running. It's just that with running you get a little more leeway because water provides more resistance than air.

Why? Because his foot is (gasp!) touching in front of him? Guarantee it's underneath him when his weight is on it, and that his weight is landing mid-fore foot.

This is what jacks up so many new runners, is they hear that they should be striking with their weight directly under them, and they try to run with never letting their leg get in front of their body at all, when that is not what it means.

It's like the swim pull. Yea, the zipper drill is great to teach an over the water recovery, but once someone is getting their hand/arm out of the water for the recovery, I could care less what it looks like.

John 

Apples and oranges.

He may not have a lot of weight on that leg out in front of him, but he has *some* weight on it. And, like it or not, there are braking forces going on when you do that. Maybe not a ton, but some, and thats gonna slow you down. Kinda like driving around with your e-brake on. You may not even notice it, but your gas mileage will tell you it's having a negative effect.

I don't care where he strikes, because he's tasty

Again, read the article.

Stomping your feet on the ground is not a push off.  That's the force that they are talking about.

Well, 99% of runners do it, and this guy seems to do pretty well with it, so I'm not going to spend my time and jack up the people I coach by worrying about a relatively infinitesimal amount of "braking".

John

OK...change stomping to jumping up and down.

You can't really argue that efficiency doesn't play a significant role, can you?

When you jump up and down, are you moving your legs from behind you to in front of you?

What efficiency are you talking about, anyway?  What I'm stating is that, according to the article, cadence is not the determining factor in speed, it's force applied against the ground.  Cadence is a factor of that force, because you need to get your foot around quicker to make the landing.

After hijacking the tread entirely, what are you debating about? I thought your whole argument was that anyone running 85 cadence or lower equals to over striding which again is a bit of a stretch considering:

1. Over striding as John posted above is not about point of contact but about the point at which your entire body weight is been supported.
2. Running economy is an integration of numerous systems both: biomechanical and physiological. 
3. Running stride length is just a small portion of economy and considering there are studies done demonstrating that improving one’s cadence to shorten stride even when it seemingly reduce over stride in general it has negative effects on economy which is not something you want to mess up with unless such over stride is indeed slowing down your forward movement. (Alexander or Haile Gebrselassie are not OS.)

Owwww sorry I didn't realize I'd picked a tender spot!! Thanks for all the feed back, I guess I'll just keep running without music.... it causes less fights!!!

A few points, after pondering all of this overnight:

1. I didn't hijack the thread. The road I've gone down is a pertinent extension of the OP's question ("should I be timing foot strikes to music?". Because no, you shouldn't. Why not? You'll screw up your biomechanics and efficiency. Why? Well....
2. It's been my experience in coaching *lots* of runners, most of them beginners, that the single most influencial piece of advice you can give them is to adjust their stride rate to 85-90 cycles per minute, for the reasons I've said. Yes, Scout and his article are right in that more force equals faster speed, but that's not exactly revolutionary, or even surprising, since all the article he posted did was confirm Newton's second law. Earth shattering stuff there. But moreover, especially when posting in a webforum for newbies, articles like that can paralyze people with too much information. Try this: the next time you're out coaching runners, tell them "ok...this time, I want you to apply more force when you run." You'll be answered with bug eyes. People don't want to hear that, they want something simple that they can easilly apply. Like "this time, I want you to run faster, but keep your turnover quick." People can actually internalize that. Usually, they don't need or want to know that the actual reason they are running faster is they are applying more force, and that their stride length is increasing because of inertial forces secondary to the increased forces (or whatever).
3. Jorge's point about where your foot lands relative to where your entire body wieght is carried: I disagree. Simple physics say that if you apply any body weight to the ground in front of your center of mass, braking forces ensue. And that's not good. Sure, when you're running 13mph, your momentum is going to largely negate a lot of the braking, but if you apply thos emechanics to someone running 7mph or slower, like most of us, the braking forces are magnified. Just cause really good runners do it doesn't make it good, or good for everyone. .
4. Related to that: Yeah, that video of Gebrsalassie shows he's putting his foot down apparently in front of his center of mass. But that doesn't mean his technique isn't imperfect. Even the best in the world can find little things to work on to make them better. Don't believe me? A couple of years ago Tiger Woods completely remade his golf swing. Mistake? His results prove otherwise.
5. Giving us normal folks advice reasoned by "this is how the elites do it" is troublesome. They're different from us. Gebrselassie weighs 120lbs and runs 4:30 miles all day long. If you try to tell some 180lb 7:30/mile runner like me that it's cool to strike in front of your center of mass because Geb does it is gonna get me into trouble, because my joints are exposed to a whole heck of a lot more stress (something like 360lbs per foot strike) than his are. Being a tiny little guy like him, he's not going to incur load-induced tibial stress syndrome the way I'm going to be prone to do, for example.
6. It's really interesting that I get beat up for saying "the efficient application of force" is critical in running speed. But, it's been an interesting discussion.

I'm new to running, and not particularly fast, but I do have one observation about this statement (which comes from physics training more than from running, so maybe it's totally out of line).  The extent to which a foot strike out in front of the body creates braking forces will also depend on the motion that is occurring.  To take an extreme example (and I'm not claiming anybody runs this way -- I have no idea):  if that leg is actually moving back (relative to the pavement, towards the runners c.o.g.) when it strikes, then no, it will not create braking forces.  (Instead, it will be either neutral or even 'pulling' the runner along.)

In other words, it strikes me as quite likely that although the leg is out front at the moment of impact, the component of the force parallel to the ground that is being applied by the foot (hence the force that the ground exerts back on the runner in the opposite direction -- Newton's Third Law) is small or zero, or even negative.

The 'possibly negative' part comes from advice I once heard (don't know whether it is good) that your foot should already be just starting its backward motion when it strikes the ground.

Oh, and I don't run with music.