General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Improving Stride Rate--Daniels' comments

Started by Lyndon · · Last activity · 5 posts · 581 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
30 May 2004
Last activity
30 May 2004
Original author
Lyndon
Posts
5
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
581
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–5 of 5
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. There was a discussion elsewhere recently about a hs runner
    with a very slow stride rate and how to improve this. The
    quoted paragraphs below were posted by Jack Daniels PhD
    himself. As this is a fairly common discussion item here, I
    thought this might be of some interest.

    "Encourage him to try to be light on his feet; not
    necessarily on his toes, but hitting the ground with light,
    quick steps. Stride rate is a voluntary thing and a runner
    can pretty much be in control of rate. Stride length, on the
    other hand, is more a function of fitness. Get the rate
    right first then as he gets fitter the stride length can
    increase without sacrificing rate. Slow trunover is
    associated with higher displacement of the center of mass,
    which means hitting the ground harder with each landing and
    that reduces economy and increases chances of injury. Run
    over the ground, not into it. Have him try counting his
    stride rate at different stages of a run, and make self
    corrections if it is too slow."

    "We counted rate (and calculated length by also timing 200-
    meter segments of the races) of runners (both men and
    women) in the 800, 1500, 3k (flat for women and steeple for
    men), 5k, 10k and marathon, and found that from 3k on up
    rate was about the same, so only length made the difference
    in run velocity. The 1500 runners do go faster (over 100 is
    not unusual) and the 800 even faster. Their faster rates
    are not always the most economical, but economy is not
    necessarily the most important thing for these shorter
    races. These same 1500 runners who may go over 100 (I refer
    to right-foot falls, so it is really twice as many steps --
    since most runners take the same number of steps with the
    left foot as they do with the right, it's safe to double
    the right-foot falls) are down around the 90 rate at slower
    training speeds."

    "Chances are the taller people will turn over a little less
    than very short people. However,one of our top distance
    runners of the 60s and 70s, who was an inch or two taller
    than you, used to go about 180. Probably good to go with the
    most comfortable rate. If you could get tested sometime it
    wouldn't be hard to pin it down more exactly."

    Lyndon "Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!"
    --US Olympic Track Coach Brooks Johnson

  2. [email hidden] (Lyndon) wrote in
    :"]news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    There was a discussion elsewhere recently about a hs
    runner with a very slow stride rate and how to improve
    this. The quoted paragraphs below were posted by Jack
    Daniels PhD himself. As this is a fairly common discussion
    item here, I thought this might be of some interest.

    I have noticed during my occasional track workouts, that the
    younger runners (guessing high school age) tend to have
    longer, slower strides (maybe over striding). I also noticed
    a lot of up and down movement as opposed to the straight
    ahead movement of an efficient distance runner. This is of
    course based on my small sampling of runners that happened
    to be working out when I was working out. Do kids tend to do
    this if they aren't coached properly?

    Phil M.

    --
    "I gotta go. You're killin' me."

  3. In article <[email hidden]>, Phil M.

    Quoted message said:

    [email hidden] (Lyndon) wrote in news:20040527115318.29983.00000010@mb-
    m28.aol.com:

    Quoted message said:

    There was a discussion elsewhere recently about a hs
    runner with a very slow stride rate and how to improve
    this. The quoted paragraphs below were posted by Jack
    Daniels PhD himself. As this is a fairly common
    discussion item here, I thought this might be of some
    interest.

    I have noticed during my occasional track workouts, that
    the younger runners (guessing high school age) tend to
    have longer, slower strides (maybe over striding). I also
    noticed a lot of up and down movement as opposed to the
    straight ahead movement of an efficient distance runner.
    This is of course based on my small sampling of runners
    that happened to be working out when I was working out. Do
    kids tend to do this if they aren't coached properly?

    Phil M.

    Phil,

    Over the years, I've found over the years of observing and
    coaching that what Jack said regarding "voluntary" is
    important.

    For some thinkers, the idea of a bigger stride to cover more
    ground makes sense. So they take bigger steps and overstride
    thereby slowing themselves in the process of attempting to
    go forward.

    When I give them the image of a foot touchdown as being a
    bean bag, or a tennis ball, or a superball they get the idea
    that they need to run lightly over the ground.

    When they play the ouch-ouch-ouch running image, that is
    running over a hot asphalt road barefoot, they get the idea
    of quickly picking up the feet.

    When they remember being told to walk not run around the
    pool, they get the idea that the body/center of gravity is
    moving horizontal with minimal verttical movement.

    Then adding some of Danny Dreyer's chi running concepts that
    you don't lift the knees rather the idea of bringing the
    lower leg up to less than 090 degrees in relationship to the
    hamstring.

    And adding some of my own imaging that the legs start below
    the rib cage, and that one is being catapulted off the
    placed foot, the runners begin to get a sense of what it
    means that running is falling and catching oneself
    gracefully, or like a skateboarder catapulting the
    skateboard forward with each kickback on the ground.

    Most of us are visual learners. This is where the eye plays
    tricks on what we think we see is going on and the reality
    of what is actually happening. e.g. The elbows down swing
    backward, the body goes forward past the elbow which from
    the viewers perspective looks as if the elbow is swing
    backwards and then forwards.

    Just some thoughts.

    In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Maintainer -
    rec.running FAQ Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est.
    1975

    Mindful Running: mindfulness.commr.asp faqs.orgrunning
    faq/

  4. Lyndon said:

    One of the best examples of why NOT to take longer strides
    (overstriding) can be found in the womens 400 at the Home
    Depot Invitational. Jearl Miles-Clark (one of the all-time
    best) was in the race. The women who led for most of the
    race had a big lead at 200, but as she got more tired, the
    kept opening up her stride. Miles-Clark maintained her
    stride. closed the gap and pulled ahead just before the
    tape. The other woman would have won the race if she just
    kept the same stride length.

    Whilst I'm a fan of the shorter stride/180 cadence, I hardly
    think one race proves anything. All you can say is that the
    other woman *might* have won if she just kept the same
    stride length.

    Tim
    --
    Remove the obvious to reply by email.

  5. In article <[email hidden]>, Tim Downie

    Quoted message said:
    Lyndon said:

    One of the best examples of why NOT to take longer
    strides (overstriding) can be found in the womens 400 at
    the Home Depot Invitational. Jearl Miles-Clark (one of
    the all-time best) was in the race. The women who led
    for most of the race had a big lead at 200, but as she
    got more tired, the kept opening up her stride. Miles-
    Clark maintained her stride. closed the gap and pulled
    ahead just before the tape. The other woman would have
    won the race if she just kept the same stride length.

    Whilst I'm a fan of the shorter stride/180 cadence, I
    hardly think one race proves anything. All you can say is
    that the other woman *might* have won if she just kept the
    same stride length.

    Tim

    I think there's some misconception regarding shorter
    stride/180 cadence.

    The shorter stride in my mind's eye means there is no
    overstriding and the runner lands ball/heel
    (instantaneously) or mid sole or flat footed with the center
    of gravity over or slightly in front of the foot placement.
    If I am running fast the shorter stride is still covering a
    larger stride length.

    In a shorter race, the gap between someone leading and the
    runner catching up and passing them is often the fact that
    the behind-runner increases the cadence while maintaining
    the same stride length. From our spectator point of view it
    looks like the lead runner is almost standing still as the
    behind-runner accelerates.

    In your observations above, Tim, often the front runner is
    keeping the same stride length however her stride rate is
    slowing. Often because it is so fast we can't see it.
    However when slowed greatly one can see the changes in
    decrease or increase of stride rate.

    In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Maintainer -
    rec.running FAQ Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est.
    1975

    Mindful Running: mindfulness.commr.asp faqs.orgrunning
    faq/

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.