Running to music.... (Page 3)

That's a good point, and that "clawing at the ground" thing is something sprinters are taught. BUt sprinting technique is different from distance running technique. Faster runners do it to some extent, slower ones (e.g. us) don't.

Distance runners are taught (or should be taught) to dorsiflex their foot in the extension phase, which preloads the ankle joint and therefore initiates proper muscle firing order upon contact with the ground. It's pretty hard to claw at the ground with a dorsiflexed foot.

Let’s discuss your points one at a time:

1. Sounds good but remember; in running we don’t use the term efficiency, the correct term is economy.
2. You might have lots of experience and use anecdotal evidence to support that, however while anecdotal evidence is important it can also be misleading. Unless you test every athlete in the lab you have no clue as to whether the changes in cadence are beneficial or not; that is unless you test their economy before or after you have no idea if it is the best way for them to run. Yes they might run faster but that doesn’t mean they are running is the most economical way given their natural running gait. As it is been suggested over and over, running economy is an integration of numerous systems both: biomechanical (athlete’s height, weight, leg size, body type, equipment (shoes), kinematics and stride length/rate), physiological (muscle fiber mix, LT, VO2max) and training load. In that context cadence as you can see is just a tinny thing and it is not as important as you ought it to be and it usually will change (though not dramatically) with the athlete’s training load over years and years of training.
3. You can disagree but I can show you video of elites or regular AGers and I can guarantee that most will land in what seemingly is in front of their center of gravity; but as I said it is not over striding because it is not where your foot makes contact to the ground but when your entire body weight is supported. As long as the runner is not landing significantly bearing weight of his/her body in front of the center of gravity and the foot inertia follows a backward motion, it is not over striding.
4. What’s running technique? (I look forward for your definition). I’ve heard people talk about it over and over but the reality is that there is no such a thing as proper running technique. There are many seemingly unorthodox running styles (i.e. Paula Radcliffe) which go against what proper ‘form’ or ‘technique’ is, yet these athletes not only perform well with these funky styles. They also have shown incredible running economy and the reasons are already addressed on point# 2. Also unlike golf which is more of a skill sport, running (specifically) economy it is been shown to improve over time by just running. An athlete will naturally adjust his/her body while handling greater loads and find the best economic way to run. You can attempt to make some tweaks here and there but that’s about it. Still, don’t let me stop you to contact Haile and tell him you could further improve his economy technique and help him break the 2hr mark
5. I think John posted Haile’s video not to suggest AGers should train like him but to support his statement that over striding is not what you suggest. 
6. I guess it is a perception thing; you think you were beat up for expressing your opinion, while I believe no one was attacking you. In my case, I am simply challenging your generalization that "those running at 85 cadence or lower = to over striding" and also what you suggest as over striding.

Actually, as to the issue of Force, this may be more helpful:

Yeah...I get that...and I mentioned earlier that it's more important in swimming that running, cause water's a bnit more dense than air.

But it shouldn't be ignored in running just because there's less of a penalty. Especially when you consider that runners are sooooo injury prone, and many of those injuries are caused by correctable biomechanical errors.

And when does trying to correct the "penalty" (i.e. the negligible braking from having your foot touch in front of your CG) become counterproductive? The only way you can avoid it is always having your foot land directly under or behind your CG, and I can't find a video of ANYONE running faster than 12:00 miles that does that.

I tried to run like that last night, and gave up after a 1/4 mile. It hurt my knees more than a 10 mile run would, and I was constantly fighting not to fall over forward.

Edited to add: The concept that the foot touching in front of the body produces a braking force is like saying that the black holes in the universe affect the earths orbit. Sure, it might be true, but does it really make a difference? Not so much. 

John

Couple things:

I don't think most injuries come from biomechanical issues; they come from bad training, meaning too much too soon.

Second, I'm not advocating ignoring technique.  I firmly believe there are drills that people can do to make them more efficient/economical/whatever you wanna call it.  However, those drills tend to be less about specific aspects of a person's form, and more about working with what you've got.  Running hills is a good example here.  It works on lengthening your stride without having to worry about exactly how.

All injuries aren't caused from biomechanical issues, just as all injuries aren't cause from training errors. But some injuries are caused from biomechanical errors, like ITBS and overstriding.

1. For the average runner who doesn't have access to a laboratory-buit, efficiency is an easier concept to grasp than economy, because for the vast majority of us, we don't have access to VO2 max and blood-lactate testing and exercise physiologists to tweak our technique. Average runners can, however, work on technique to make themselves more efficient. Remember...I'm speaking in the context of the average runner. Would I love to get all of my runners on a treadmill, hook them up to a spirometer, draw blood every minute and monkey with their technique to figure out how exactly they are most econimical? Sure. It's not practical, though. >> That’s the issue, I don’t think the avg AGer needs to do any of that, they just need to do proper training, run more and things will sort out themselves. As a coach a rather be observant of how the athletes responds to training load and how that impact his/her results. As long as the athlete is running healthy (no major injuries) to me is not relevant how they run. Yes could we find minor tweaks that maybe it might allow them to running even better? Sure! But unless I can objectively test it will be just a guess. Plus considering those runners who have 1) run more years and 2) log more load tend to exhibit the best economy I rather focus on that.
2. So your argument is you shouldn't monkey with anyone's running form unless you do so in a lab? Because I'll tell you that as a coach, I can correct lots of flaws just by observing. Some things are cut and dried. >> You might think you correct lots of “flaws”, but the reality is that you can’t deduce anything from an athlete’s running style and economy by just looking at them run.  Unless you test, ANYTHING you suggest will be a guess at best. Have you seen Hillary Biscay run? Would you dare changing her stride? What about Paula Radcliffe? Yes you might offer suggestions and minor tweaks (mainly upper body posture) but that’s about it.
3. As I said, the faster you are, the more iniertia negates braking force. But for the slow plodder, again, if your foot out in front of you, you're doing more harm than good. I'll submit that 99% of runners (as you mentioned) have less than perfect technique. >> Again, who cares when running style an economy is the sum of many things both biomechanical AND physiological. There is no proper running “form” or technique, what you might think is the proper way to help an athlete might in fact not.

To be honest, I used to think like you; that is I used to believe proper technique could be teach, that there are specific ways to better run, drills, etc. As I have developed as an athlete and coach my thinking has drifted from that and changed. Trust me I am still developing as a coach and I have a long way go and learn much more. That means my thinking might keep on evolving as I do. However, today I realized some of the things I learned at the beginning was nothing more than some anecdotal evidence by some famous coach(es). Now I gravitate between scientific and anecdotal evidence and I believe somewhere in the middle is where the “art of coaching” comes into play.

My opinion about running might sound simple but it is far from simplistic. However I don’t think it out to be as complicated as some coaches make it sound; today you have gait video analysis, metabolic testing, VO2maxt test, special costumed orthotics, technical running shoes to ‘fix’ or promote proper gait, books suggesting “proper running technique”, etc. To me a lot of that is unnecessary - I believe if you are observant, pay attention to your athlete specific traits and help him/her do proper training load he/she will become a better athlete and most important avoid injuries. AGers just need to train; most injuries in general are because of bad training and not the result of biomechanical deficiencies, that’s not my opinion, that’s a fact.

One of my athletes went to a training camp organized by another coaching group and it was suggested to the athlete by a coach to change the running style and what the athlete believed was proper technique (forefoot running, faster cadence, etc). When I heard this I was against it, still the athlete ignored, tried it and a stress fracture later the athlete got back listening to me.

To quote Brett Sutton: “Mate, let me tell you: running is like a suit once size doesn’t fit all. You got to look at your individual traits, that includes what you done for your life span , if you started running first at 40,let me tell you , your motor patterns are in and trying to give new ones is why we have physios flourishing in the money business, that and new scientific shoes; they will kill ya! So if you have 3 times a week to run say 40 min 2 times and 1h15 one other time then your best drill is run Forrest run. No matter your technical deficiencies”

Yeah...I hear what your saying Jorge, and I'm even starting to be persuaded. I can see where you could screw someone up who's been training for years and has thousands of miles under thier belt. Like you said, messing with burned in muscle pathways is dangerous. And yeah...if you've got someone who has been runnign long for years without injury, then yeah...don't fix what isn't broke.

BUT...when you're dealing with new runners, instilling proper technique has value, no? I'd rather correct what I perceive to be overstriding in some new runner loping along at 75-80 cycles per minute, bounding up in the air with lots of vertical displacement than wait for him to get a stress fracture and *then* make adjustments.

Well, yeah, but that's not really the same thing that we've been hashing over. :D There IS a basic running form, and bounding like a spooked gazelle is not it. I'd correct that too... :D

John 

You'd be surprised at some of the things I see....

Heh. I've been teaching/coaching various sports for a long time. I know what you mean. There's a lot of.... interesting... variations on things out there.

John

But what is proper technique?  How do you define it?  What are you correcting, and how are you doing it?

technique in running is kind of overrated, IMO.  everyone has a natural run style and should probably stick to that.  make simple adjustments, like where you center of gravity is, other than that, just run.

from what I've learned so far, swimming is the only sport that is going to give you noticeble performance improvements with technique alone.

I've tride forced fore-foot landing, increase cadence, shorter strides, differenet pedaling strokes on the bike, nothing has improved my performance noticabley with running than more running and biking than more biking.

Again, major things should be addressed, but all these little things jsut wont add up to much.  (unless you're elite)

Here are the things I look for in my newbie runners:

• Arm carriage. If you're crossing your centerline with your hands and I see your shoulders displacing, I'll correct it.
• Vertical head movement. You're bounding, probably from over striding. Shorten it up. You want to go forward, not up and down, and you want to lessen impact forces on each footfall.
• Foot in relation to hip at impact: Again...shorten your stride.
• Posture: I want to see you upright. I don't want to see your hips tilted forward, because I don't want stress on your lower back. I don't want to see shoulders hunched or splayed unnaturaly.
• Tension: I don't want to see clenched fists, shoulders drawn up towards your ears or strain in your neck.

And that's generally it.

There are a few points flowing through this thread, some more on topic than others.

Should you listen to music when running?  I do and here is why: 

Jack Daniels is one of the best running/track coaches in the country over the last 40+ years.  He has written a book titled, Daniels Running Formulas which covers a ton of relevant topics.  One of his points that he makes is that, based upon analyzing running for years, runners with a 90 cadence or thereabouts are the most efficient.  Daniels studiied why that was the case and found that the legs acted somewhat like springs when running.  The stored energy was best transferred back to the ground with a cadence around 90.

Daniels also found that injury risk was minimized when higher cadences, (and shorter strides) were utilized.  Slower striders tend to have more vertical oscillation, creating larger force impacts upon each stride.  More force impact, higher injury risk.

So based upon Daniels' work, I have tried to imcrease my cadence to about 90 from a more "natural" 75-80.   It does take months to make changes of this nature.  It does become more natural feeling with time.

To help me learn the faster cadences, I've made a playlist for my ipod with music that has beats of 88 to 92 BPM.  It helps that I'm a spinning instructor and have analyzed my music library for BPM.  But all the same, I do try to match my feet to the beat.  And doing so definitely makes me shorten and quicken my stride.

Now the question of running technique or form.  Is this something we should work on?  Daniels doesnt have much to say on that subject outside of cadence and pacing.  But there is a lengthy series of articles from the following website discussing precisely this issue.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/01/running-technique.html

After reviewing these papers and articles, it appears that changing running technique to something like a Pose or Chi or whatnot is not beneficial and actually has an increased injury risk.  In essense, everyone has their own running technique.  Your best bet is to go with that.

So to answer the OPs question:  I listen to music with a BPM of 88-92 and try to match my strides to that.  I no longer try to change my form to a Pose or Chi or whatever.

The issue with running to music to change cadence is that your body tends to self-select the most efficient cadence.  Forcing that to an artificial number is not necessarily the best idea.

I think you are much better off not worrying about your running cadence and focusing instead on running more.  You run more, you will become more efficient/economical.  I'm pretty sure Dr. Daniels would agree with this.

x a bunch.

John 

I'll see if I can get some time tonight to pull out my Daniels book and be exact in what he's stating/proposing about cadence. 

That said, I absolutely agree with you on the bolded part.  I don't think anyone is debating that.

From the man himself

Any jtupper posts are Dr. Daniels.

I'm very interested in this idea that people 'self-select' an efficient (or economical) gait.  I'm not denying it at all.  (I mean that -- I have little experience running, and none coaching, and I have never run with anybody else, except in races.)

Here's why I ask:  I ran a marathon (my first) last fall, and seeded myself very conservatively in the back.  I proceeded to pass hundreds and hundreds of BOP runners, and had a chance to see lots and lots of gaits.  I'm no expert by any stretch, but compared to what I saw in some people, 'bounding like a spooked gazelle' sounds pretty good.  Now, presumably these people had run a decent amount in order to finish this marathon (I assume most of them finished, and that they trained to get there), and yet it seems that at least some of them had not 'self-selected' an efficient (or economical) gait, at least by my amateur observation.

Hence I ask:

1.  What (non-anecdotal) evidence do we have that people self-select an efficient (or economical gait?

2.  How long does it take?

I'm willing to bet most of them didn't run a decent amount.