180 steps/min running cadence mp3



Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On 2004-08-27, Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
>
>>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>>>On 2004-08-27, Jane <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Today I decided to throw 180 steps per minute into the mix. I increased my
>>>>cadence and decreased my stride. I had to take very, very small steps to
>>>>keep within the proper pace and, even so, my Garmin was constantly beeping
>>>>at me. Funny thing was, I checked cadence a few times in the run and I was
>>>>dead on 180 every time. It felt much more natural to me than the slower
>>>>cadence. The stride was a little wierd though.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your cadence will be a little slower than 180/min if your pace is much below
>>>10 minutes per mile. 6:30/km is about 10:30/mile, so expect a slower cadence.
>>>

>>
>>Why?

>
>
> Because that happens to be what is most efficient. Most runners *do* chose a
> slightly slower cadence at slower paces, and they do this because it is *more
> efficient*.


For you and your buddies maybe? Perhaps by "most" you're acknowledging
that not everybody does run a slower cadence at slower paces. There's
lots of evidence to suggest that the cadence stays fairly constant
across a wide range of paces. Take a look back at r.r over the past
3.5 years. You're the only one that I can remember that's made that
statement, and there's lots of other people, including slower than 10
min/mi, that are running cadence of 180 (except on some trails, deep
snow, mud, etc, or tuckered out in bad form). My point is that things
aren't as black and white as you make them sound.

In this particular case, the person found that 180 was "much more
natural to me than the slower cadence". Why would you suggest she might
want to slow the cadence down?

I think the video that somebody analyzed had some short distance (can't
remember the distance, perhaps sprint) runners with cadence above 200,
iirc. So my assumption is that really fast runners may run at a much
higher cadence than 180. Not sure what they train at. So maybe slow
runners should run at 180. Works for me.


>
> My question to you would be, *why not* ?


Because it doesn't make any sense. Why should you suggest that bumble
bees can't fly, when they clearly can. This is what many people find.
Perhaps a few outliers exceptions that probably forced something else
when they tried to switch to 180 and got injured.

>
> The supposed premise, that there is excessive vertical motion with lower
> cadences, simply doesn't apply if one of your feet is on the ground for
> most of the time.


Ah, I'm not doing single leg squat balances while I run.
The alternative that you're missing is that you can just maintain the
same cadence at all paces - just shorten the steps.
>
>
>>- unless by a "little slower" you mean like 175, which I consider
>>almost within measurement error.

>
>
> Could be slower than that.
>
>
>>As usual, I don't think pace has much
>>to do with anything -

>
>
> But it does. Below a sufficiently slow pace, it becomes inefficient to have
> both feet off the ground at the same time -- because this results in that
> boogeyman called, repeat after me, vertical motion!


No, take smaller steps. Not sure why this is so hard to comprehend. Yes,
on longer runs, it may need to slow the cadence, but that's a factor of
conditioning.


> is more economical than running at 3mph. At slow paces like 5mph, it is more
> economical to do a sort of shuffle-run.


Perhaps for you. I shuffle-run sometimes when I'm being lazy or on flat
or easy ground, but generally I have to clear roots or snow. When you
get to be twice your age, you may understand.

The relative efficiency of different forms (run or walk) of locomotion
varies among individuals, and it may vary with trained athletes compared
with sedentary (and I'm sure there's in between results for those of us
in between). (see the paper I posted a while ago on energy costs)

I will admit that I'm not sure I've ever run something completely flat
with a firm surface, so perhaps what you are saying makes sense there.
But on the terrain I run on (including the paved bike path when I used
to run that), it just doesn't hold.

>
>
>>It's just a matter of taking small steps.

>
>
> I realise that it's possible to take small steps. I'm disputing that it's always
> desirable to do so.


I agree. But some of us like to run hills - because they are there. You
may chose to use a watch to measure speed in a horizontal distance.
Others of us prefer the 3-dimensional challenge. Perhaps some day I'll
worry about vertical ft / min pace, but for now, I'm just concerned with
getting more efficient at doings things. And for me right now, I do get
better each time - whether it's inefficient or not is irrelevant.
>
>
>>I might argue that cadence, at least for beginners, *increases* with
>>slower pace, unless walking - consider running up 30+% slopes on trails.

>
>
> I'm not talking about running up 30% grades. Though I'd argue that for most
> beginners, it's more economical to walk up such a grade (and the cadence for
> walking *is* less than 180!)
>


But perhaps some of us would like to *run* 30% grades - because they are
a challenge. And by the time one gets to 30% grades (maybe a little
above), it's lower energy cost for elites to walk also. If the race is
short, they run; if it's a few hours, they walk - depends on how much
energy they can expend.

For long runs (about 1.5 hr in my case, much longer for experienced
runners), I and many experienced runners would probably walk it. But
that doesn't mean you don't run them in training to improve your hill
running. Same idea as training on longer distances than race distances -
train on steeper hills than race day. I like to challenge myself. I
recognize for you the clock on flat surfaces is the challenge. Some of
us prefer other challenges, which take just as much work.
Although one of my short races (5k, assuming not cancelled again) does
use this course, and I see no reason to walk those hills in a race of
that duration, if I have the time to train.


Now, it's also possible in my case, because of the biomechanical issues
(diagnosed by PT) I have with my feet (a result is increased time in
foot plant) and a lot of my running is on snow, I may not have developed
some mechanics. dunno. BUT, I still run a wide variety of paces at about
175-180. And my slowest paces are usually uphill or snow or dark and the
are slower cadence.

Dot

--
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog
 
Doug Freese wrote:
> "Ozzie Gontang" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:280820042037102093%[email protected]...
>
>
>>It teaching people to run up hills, the chant is: The steeper the
>>hill,
>>the shorter the step. With that in mind, the idea is that the cadence
>>remains the same, the lean remains the same, and the shorter step
>>allows the body to fall through the hill so that the feeling is that
>>one is not laboring up a hill. On a gradual hill, the feeling is that
>>one is falling up the hill.

>
>
> Ozzie, I confess to not counting steps but tend to agree with Donovan on
> steep uphills. My standard hill for definition is 500 foot per mile and
> a consistent pull.


Which is about 10% grade. The nearby topography that I have to deal with
goes from about 10-30% (with 5% hiccups in my flat runs ;), with the
steepest usually being the shortest (about 1 min or less to get up). To
me, the biomechanics of those steeper grades is different than, say 5%
hills. To me, the one "long" (1.5 mi, about 850ft vert), 10% hill is at
the lower end when the vertical movement is significant - that is, it
becomes more a strength issue with each step. Our bike path has rolling
hills, maybe about 5%, and I never felt like I had to change mechanics
substantially to run it - one foot in front of the other, rather than
one foot above the other, like on the steeper hills. Maybe for more
advanced, stronger people, my 10% line may be closer to 20% where you
feel the vertical nature of uphill running. I dunno, just speculating.


I've been running this hill for 15 years as I do 80%
> of my ultra training on this mother. I do use small steps, learned that
> 14 years ago but I can assure you my cadence is much slower.


Yes, on long runs on 10% hills, your cadence might be slower. For
curiosity, does your cadence vary between a long (say, 2+hrs), gentle
run, and a short, fast run (say, 45 min) - or even long vs short, same pace.

I'm going to post a more complete answer about hills with pics to Phil
M. (busy weekend so haven't had time to respond to r.r and don't have
the pics set yet), since he's asked me a couple times about hills, and
the pics are most relevant there. But when I did repeats on the mtn last
summer - where the intention was to run whatever was in my way (not
saying anything about efficiency) - I found myself doing almost a
staccato - very quick, small steps - toe to toe. They were fast enough
that I don't feel I could count them and conentrate on running.

The one person that I saw running up the one hill at the mtn race looked
like she had a quick cadence - although she got a lot farther than I do
per step ;)
>
>
>>The shorter stride, with the foot landing ball/heel and from that
>>platform the other foot is lifted forward.

>
>
> Ball heel on a big uphill? I must be bizarre because my entire up is
> strictly on the ball of my foot. If I allow my heel to touch I would
> spend even more time in contact and much more time in contact with the
> ground not counting even more pressure to the Achilles and calf.


My achilles doesn't have that range of flexibility to even think about
touching ;)

>
>
>>The idea is that there is no push off in running up hills.

>
>
> You got me here. The what do we call the effort of going forward on an
> uphill? The term "no push off" make it sound as if it's effortless. For
> a downhill run I would understand "minimal push off" but I'm less
> comfortable with the statement on uphills.
>

Agreed. some pics will help explain, I think. Unless you've got
anti-gravity paint on your shoes you gotta do something to lift center
of gravity ;) This is where vertical motion is good! BUT, I can see in
most road races, where the feeling of needing to lift the body isn't
there. But there's a paper / book (Yessis?) that comments about the
force comes from the springing of the tensioned tendon, iirc, rather
than an actual push - at least in flat running. That's may be partly
true in hills less than a few pct, I'm guessing, since I generally can't
tell I'm running up a grade like that - although I do notice the free
ride down :)

Dot

--
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog
 
On 2004-08-30, Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
[snip]
> For you and your buddies maybe?


Look, I'm not the one who's trying to browbeat everyone into running 180
strides per minute at all cadences.

> Perhaps by "most" you're acknowledging
> that not everybody does run a slower cadence at slower paces. There's


Of course.

> lots of evidence to suggest that the cadence stays fairly constant
> across a wide range of paces.


Yes, I don't dispute this. 10 minutes per mile to 5:40 per mile is a "wide
range" in my view.

> Take a look back at r.r over the past
> 3.5 years. You're the only one that I can remember that's made that
> statement,


Doug just posted a few moments ago that his cadence is slower up hills, largely
due to greater ground contact time. But what usually happens is Oz posts his
gospel and no-one challenges it. The fact that Oz says it a thousand times
doesn't make it true. The fact that no-one's said it before doesn't mean that
no-one's experienced it either -- it just means it hasn't come up before.

> and there's lots of other people, including slower than 10
> min/mi, that are running cadence of 180 (except on some trails, deep
> snow, mud, etc, or tuckered out in bad form). My point is that things
> aren't as black and white as you make them sound.


I put it to you that it is those who are argue that 180 strides per minute is
optimal for every person across all paces are the ones that are making things
sound "black and white".

My position is that 180 strides per minute may not be the optimal cadence for
every person, across every stride rate. I am *not* saying that no-one can or
should run at that cadence below 10 minutes per mile.

> In this particular case, the person found that 180 was "much more
> natural to me than the slower cadence". Why would you suggest she might
> want to slow the cadence down?


My position is that they should use whatever cadence is more natural, rather
than forcing themselves to do exactly 180 because of some dogma they heard on
rec.running.

> iirc. So my assumption is that really fast runners may run at a much
> higher cadence than 180. Not sure what they train at.


I spin the wheels at several strides per minute higher than that, closer to 190
during interval work. But most of my training runs are closer to 180 (still
faster). It gradually drops below 180 (closer to 170 or so) as my pace goes
down to 10 minutes per mile. The mechanism behind this is increased ground
contact time -- I am 6 foot, so the extra work in moving legs around is a waste
when I can take long strides without leaving the ground.

>> The supposed premise, that there is excessive vertical motion with lower
>> cadences, simply doesn't apply if one of your feet is on the ground for
>> most of the time.

>
> Ah, I'm not doing single leg squat balances while I run.
> The alternative that you're missing is that you can just maintain the
> same cadence at all paces - just shorten the steps.


Yes, you can, but this doesn't mean that it's the most efficient way to run.

>>>As usual, I don't think pace has much
>>>to do with anything -

>>
>> But it does. Below a sufficiently slow pace, it becomes inefficient to have
>> both feet off the ground at the same time -- because this results in that
>> boogeyman called, repeat after me, vertical motion!

>
> No, take smaller steps.


You'll still get more vertical motion than you would if you never left the
ground. Not only that, but you do more work moving your legs back and forth.

[snip]
> The relative efficiency of different forms (run or walk) of locomotion
> varies among individuals,


I'm sure it does. Again, I think height has a lot to do with it -- taller
runners have to do more work accelerating their legs back and forth, and can
take very long strides without leaving the ground -- so they can more easily
afford a longer ground contact time, but can't as easily afford a rapid
stride rate.

> But perhaps some of us would like to *run* 30% grades - because they are
> a challenge. And by the time one gets to 30% grades (maybe a little
> above), it's lower energy cost for elites to walk also. If the race is
> short, they run; if it's a few hours, they walk - depends on how much
> energy they can expend.


I ran on some pretty steep grades today. Short steps, but also very long ground
contact time compared to running on flat surfaces.

> some mechanics. dunno. BUT, I still run a wide variety of paces at about
> 175-180


Well, so do -- I think it's fair to all the range from 10 minutes per mile
down to 6 minutes per mile or so a "wide variety".

What I'm not in favor of is trying to force everyone into the same mold because
of the fact that one day, Jack Daniels noticed that elites turn over at about
180.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
Phil M. wrote:
> Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I might argue that cadence, at least for beginners, *increases* with
>>slower pace, unless walking - consider running up 30+% slopes on trails.
>>We just don't get that much distance on one step on those kinds of
>>slopes, resulting in a rapid cadence, but slow pace and high hr.

>
>
> I'm curious. Have you checked your cadence while descending a 30% slope?


No. All mental and physical capacity is spent on staying upright and
vertical ;) Even going up hill, it's hard to count on the steepest slopes.

Here's some pictures of my "big hill". The 2nd picture is an example of
a slope where I might use a really, quick cadence uphill (faster than
180 cadence - at least it feels that way, esp. since the steps are
toe-to-toe) First page is showing slopes and footing; 2nd is showing
runners. I only loaded enlarged image for the one on the steep slope on
back side of Lazy, since the rest are probably viewable as is, But if
anybody wants a more detailed view of any of the pictures, I can upload
some other files (just trying to save space).
http://home.att.net/~akrunning/Hills/index.html

From last year's WMRT, here's an example of an elite downhill on a
shallower slope. All the elites took large strides. Some runners in the
Citizens' race used long strides, while others used the shorter strides.
I think the runners with the longer strides were the more experienced
runners - but they've built up to it over time.
http://home.att.net/~akrunning/WMRT2003/img_6450.sml_16.jpg


So you don't get the wrong impression about how much I use the mtn. Last
year I hiked Lazy a few times and did repeats at the bottom a couple
times. I've hiked it once this year. I usually leave 3 wks between
visits (downhill used to really smart), and the top should have snow
from Sept to April or May, so it's not something I can use a lot, esp.
at my present level of training. But I know it's there for when that
type training is the appropriate type for present goals. (right now it
isn't the right type)

The hills on the trails I do use a lot are much smaller (30-70, maybe
100ft vertical), but the slopes are much the same as Lazy. And I use
those trails about once a week year round when not out of town (system
has shallower hills at other end, and that makes up my gentle hills -
about 5-10%). I don't have ready access to extended medium hills (say
1+mi of 10%) like Doug does, although I have found a couple this summer,
but winter driving time will keep them on the summer-only list for now.

Images 6 and 8 here give a view what I consider my normal, rolling hills.
http://home.att.net/~dot.h/DogDash2002/


> While running downhill I try to keep the same fast cadence in order to
> avoid overstriding and constant braking. I think Oz refers to it as
> "putting your foot down quickly." However, running down a 30% slope is hard
> for me to imagine.


On our particular mtn, it's actually hard to walk in some areas. The
loose dirt and gravel on top starts sliding with you (think: walking on
marbles on a slope) so you almost have to run with your body slightly
forward to increase friction and keep up with your feet. I've landed on
my butt a couple times walking, but never while running.


>I run down 7% slopes and sometimes feel out of control,
> especially if I'm trying to maintain threshold effort.


My HR on the mtn *will* drop on the downhill (although adrenaline flow
is way up ;) - no way can I maintain effort on that, but I am running.
On the rolling hills (1-3 min up, probably .6-2 min down), if I walk up
(say, 85% max hr), I can almost maintain effort on the down - but it
becomes a real meatgrinder course because of the constant shifting of
gears and pounding on the downhill. And that's not me as a beginner.
Several more experienced runners have commented on the challenge of
those particular routes - and like the meatgrinder comparison. The
benefits are when I run some different trails with bigger, but gentler,
hills, I find them much easier than I would have imagined. I'll have to
confess to having a blast running down a 3% (guessing) slope - free
ride, faster pace, but no fear of wiping out ;)

I found a 10% slope on gravel road this summer (about 800ft up in 1.5
mi). Since I'd never had the opportunity to run that type hill
(reasonably runnable, but bigger than most of what I run) before
and some of the gravel was large and sharp (closer to rocky road than to
fine gravel road), I took it easy on some sections (and stopped for
pictures a couple times since it was such a pretty run) just to be on
safe side to prevent injury. I've done a lot of downhills, but not on
something this hard (as in similar to asphalt), and I was just doing my
first run there cautiously. This is where I clocked something close to
10min/mi based on gps through one section (variable readings). And yes,
I was fighting for control through parts of it. But as I do it more, I
*will* get stronger and be able to maintain control better. I've been
working on my hill running for about 2 yr now - no more than once/wk,
breaks for field work, etc. I definitely noticed an improvement this
summer in terms of having minimal soreness after downhills and being
able to run up more of the bigger (3 min) hills without slowing to a crawl.

On the mountain, it's twisty, single track in some areas, so you can't
just go whipping down the hill (see pics) - at least I can't on the
steepest parts, and the racers I watched in those areas looked about
like I feel as far as rhythm is concerned. On the gentler areas near the
top, the stronger runners were using decent size strides. And others
didn't want to be reminded that it was "all downhill from here" ;)

As I've said before, I'm still learning. I train on certain trails most
of the time, but when I can, I try to run on some different trails with
different kinds of hills to get the experience - both running the
gradients, footing, and managing energy. And I'll have to confess
to having a bunch of fun on some much gentler stuff - probably a few pct
- I could easily run up it and could run down it without fearing for my
life ;)

Probably more than you wanted to know, but sometimes pictures explain
hills a little better than words.

Dot

--
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog
 
"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I've been running this hill for 15 years as I do 80%
>> of my ultra training on this mother. I do use small steps, learned
>> that 14 years ago but I can assure you my cadence is much slower.

>
> For
> curiosity, does your cadence vary between a long (say, 2+hrs), gentle
> run, and a short, fast run (say, 45 min) - or even long vs short, same
> pace.


Something must change. :) If I'm doing a single lap each 2.5(a minimal
paking lot at the mid-way point) miles is about 30-31 minutes. When I'm
doing repeats for hours I'm about 33-35 minutes. I don't change my
stride length so I must be cadence but I'm sure that cadence is much
slower than level groound.

-DF
 
>-DF

Yep, "Didn't Finish" Freese, that's him alraight...
 
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 03:54:10 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]>
wrote:

> . . .
>I don't know what "fast" and "slow" mean. Could you say what they are, in
>miles per hour ?
> . . .


Pardon my butting in. I've watched this so many times. I would try to get
more objective about Mr. Dreyer's speed by guessing his stride length. The
#1 "slow" (vertical stance) stride appears to leave a little more than a
shoe length between footfalls. If I arbitrarily call that .75 meters per
footfall, that gives about a 12:00/mile pace. The #4 "fast" (greatest
forward lean) stride appears to be about the runner's height. If I guess
an average height of 5'8" or 1.73 meters, that would be a 5:10 pace (that
sounds too fast, but it only shows him doing it for the width of the
grandstands at a track). Just a SWAG (scientific wild-assed guess).


--
Daniel
[email protected]
 
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:10:23 +0200, steve common <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ozzie Gontang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>a 4 quadrant split screen sequence with him running at
>>180 steps/minute at 4 speeds from slow to fast. The steps are in time
>>with each other.

>
>Maybe I'm missing something fundamental, but if all 4 sequences are at
>180 steps / minute, then time-warping (or some strange hop-skip-jump
>gait) would be required for them NOT to be in time.


It's just that all four videos in the split screen are synchronized so the
foot hits the ground at the same instant in each.


--
Daniel
[email protected]
 
Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote in message


>
> Yes, I don't dispute this. 10 minutes per mile to 5:40 per mile is a "wide
> range" in my view.
>

,
>
> Doug just posted a few moments ago that his cadence is slower up hills, largely
> due to greater ground contact time. But what usually happens is Oz posts his
> gospel and no-one challenges it. The fact that Oz says it a thousand times
> doesn't make it true. The fact that no-one's said it before doesn't mean that
> no-one's experienced it either -- it just means it hasn't come up before.


Donovan,

Folklore, not gospel. And the challenges have been numerous. Usually
it's an attack with little to better teach others another and better
way of viewing or experiencing some aspect of proper running and form.

Dean Brittenham years ago spoke about the landing of the foot on the
ground being equivalent to a bean bag, a tennis ball and a superball.

The bean bag landing is that the center of gravity comes down after
the foot has landed and then has to be lifted up and come down again.
It's a clumping and lumbering. If that runner runs across a wooden
floor, you hear their impact. These runners run usually landing on
the back of the heel of the shoe or when they come down you can hear
the impact or the slapping of their feet

The tennis ball landing is created as the runner isn't lifting up
their center of gravity as much. They're lifting their knees a lot
more and not the entire center of gravity. The lower leg doesn't
swing forward as much however often there's not much lean of the body
from the ankle.

To get people to feel the experience of the superball landing, Dean
would have 4 inch rubber hurdles (^) placed about 18 inches apart.
People had to place their feet down faster and lift them up faster and
there was little or no time to lift up the whole body. In football at
this time of the year, the footballers are lifting their feet up and
down extremely fast as the coach calls out left or right. To do the
steps quickly the body's center isn't being displaced much at all.
The landing however is mainly on the balls of the feet. For me I have
them land on ball and then go to heel. The idea is that you can stop
during these quick steps and be aligned and in balance on one foot
with the ball/heel as the pedestal.

I like the exercise that Danny Dreyer does in teaching people to take
quick steps as part of the process in his ChiRunning. He has people
hold their hands in front of the thighs on the quads. Then he has
them run in place without lifting the knees and using the hands to
make sure the thighs don't swing forward. After then can do that
quickly in place, he has then lean from the ankle and they begin to
move forward and are able to stop on one foot with minimal vertical
displacement.

Donavan, I continue to attempt to share what I've experienced and
what I've attempted to make sense out of so that people can run more
easily and without serious injury. It's been twenty years of
attempting to share a perspective of running lightly over the surface
of the earth.

Slowly the shoe people are coming to see what Steve Robbins and others
have researched that thicker soled shoes often create running
injuries. Why does Amby Burfoot write an article about running
barefoot. Why do two of Nike's top researchers create the Free,
equivalent to running barefoot….and talking about having less injuries
with this kind of shoe.

Doug, Denny Anderson, Miles Lakin and so many others here at
rec.running have shared their thoughts about quick steps helping one
to lift their body less with each step….and then all the other effects
this creates in smooting out one's running form.

I've talked for years about having people think about stepping over
imaginary 2 inch tall hurdles with every step they take. It gets
people to take quick steps and not bounce up and down as much.

I talk to marathoners who have run several marathons, that they can
take 15 minutes to 45 minutes off their time by doing their same
training while playing with running easier and with less effort
through good form and style.

I've been here at rec.running since '94 or '95 talking about the same
things. I came here to have my answers questioned, and have asked
that others take my thoughts and find a better way to teach others how
to run in proper form and style. Don't show me that I'm wrong,
rather show me a better way to understand what I may not have been
able to explain clearly or give an image or picture or perceptions
that allows someone to learn what they need to be able to improve
their running and form.

Going up a hill, I have people take very small steps and a quick
cadence and that the ball/heel touches down every step. The feeling
is that there's no push off. Rather the lean from the ankle stays the
same as on level ground and this is done by taking the shorter step.
The feeling becomes one of falling through or up the hill since the
center of gravity remains falling forward. The reason for the
shorter step is that the upward diagonal is longer than the base. The
other problem for many people going up hill is that they look down
rather than keeping the head erect and eyes on the horizon or slightly
looking up the hill.

I'm saying that the quick steps remain the same through the hill. The
ability to do this is that one falls through (read: up) the hill. For
me going up hill the arms swing an inch further up and forward. The
body: opposite knee and same sided elbow catapult forward so that
they pull the plant foot off the ground and it quickly places down
again. Each time it lands with the ball/heel touching, the body is on
a platform and in balance so that the body could stop…and in stay in
balance.

As people get faster the ball/heel landing gets closer and closer to
the super ball. I continue to teach that the heel does touch. For it
is from that ball/heel plataform that the body is catapulted forward
by the hams and gluts from the platform foot and the quad/psoas of
the forward leg; from the thrust of the same side arm…along with the
equal and opposite movement of the opposite arm and of the torquing
hips and shoulders opposite and always equal.

To some of your thoughts below, I prefer to get people to practice a
quicker cadence so they get a sense of their lightness and let go of
their lumbering. They realize they aren't bouncing up and down as
much. Also they begin to realize that they are practicing to run
faster and in good form and style even at a very slow.

I talk about removing an unnecessary quarter to three-quarters of an
inch with each step. If they remove an unnecessary quarter of an inch
vertical with each step, then every 48 steps they reduced lifting
their body weight vertically one foot and not helping move their body
closer to the horizontal finish line. Remove a half inch and every 24
steps they reduce lifting their body one foot vertically.

As ChiRunning gains more advocates because of their experience of
running easier, faster, and with less injury, more and more people
will realize that one can approximate the smoothness and grace of
world class runners.

Again the idea is to approximate 180 steps. People will do what they
do regarding their cadence. I'm saying and will continue to say by
getting people to increase their cadence it's not to increase their
cadence but to give them the experience and feeling of how much easier
it can be to run when one gets away from the lumbering, bean bag
landings that most beginning older runners experience as they start to
run.




> > and there's lots of other people, including slower than 10
> > min/mi, that are running cadence of 180 (except on some trails, deep
> > snow, mud, etc, or tuckered out in bad form). My point is that things
> > aren't as black and white as you make them sound.

>
> I put it to you that it is those who are argue that 180 strides per minute is
> optimal for every person across all paces are the ones that are making things
> sound "black and white".
>
> My position is that 180 strides per minute may not be the optimal cadence for
> every person, across every stride rate. I am *not* saying that no-one can or
> should run at that cadence below 10 minutes per mile.
>
> > In this particular case, the person found that 180 was "much more
> > natural to me than the slower cadence". Why would you suggest she might
> > want to slow the cadence down?

>
> My position is that they should use whatever cadence is more natural, rather
> than forcing themselves to do exactly 180 because of some dogma they heard on
> rec.running.
>
> > iirc. So my assumption is that really fast runners may run at a much
> > higher cadence than 180. Not sure what they train at.

>
> I spin the wheels at several strides per minute higher than that, closer to 190
> during interval work. But most of my training runs are closer to 180 (still
> faster). It gradually drops below 180 (closer to 170 or so) as my pace goes
> down to 10 minutes per mile. The mechanism behind this is increased ground
> contact time -- I am 6 foot, so the extra work in moving legs around is a waste

ÿ when I can take long strides without leaving the ground.

For me the strides get longer because I am falling faster. The faster
I go the more the lower leg tucks behind the thigh so the leg can come
through faster and be placed down quicker.

Running faster with the quick steps doesn't feel like one is taking
bigger steps, yet if you go back after running through a puddle of
water and stretch with the left foot on the wet foot print and then
reach with the right foot and place it in the right wet foot print,
the person realizes they didn't realize they covered so much ground.

>
> >> The supposed premise, that there is excessive vertical motion with lower
> >> cadences, simply doesn't apply if one of your feet is on the ground for
> >> most of the time.

> >
> > Ah, I'm not doing single leg squat balances while I run.
> > The alternative that you're missing is that you can just maintain the
> > same cadence at all paces - just shorten the steps.

>
> Yes, you can, but this doesn't mean that it's the most efficient way to run.
>
> >>>As usual, I don't think pace has much
> >>>to do with anything -
> >>
> >> But it does. Below a sufficiently slow pace, it becomes inefficient to have
> >> both feet off the ground at the same time -- because this results in that
> >> boogeyman called, repeat after me, vertical motion!

> >
> > No, take smaller steps.

>
> You'll still get more vertical motion than you would if you never left the
> ground. Not only that, but you do more work moving your legs back and forth.
>
> [snip]
> > The relative efficiency of different forms (run or walk) of locomotion
> > varies among individuals,

>
> I'm sure it does. Again, I think height has a lot to do with it -- taller
> runners have to do more work accelerating their legs back and forth, and can
> take very long strides without leaving the ground -- so they can more easily
> afford a longer ground contact time, but can't as easily afford a rapid

ÿ stride rate.

I think that your reasoning loses me here. The idea is that I want
minimal ground contact time, all the time. The more the lower leg
tucks behind the thigh, i.e. heel closer to the butt; the quicker I
can move my leg through the range of motion, and place it down.

I have runners think of their legs starting below the rib cage so that
the leg, hip up to the rib cage torque back with the plant foot as the
opposite leg, hip up to the rib cage torque forward…as the shoulders
torque forward and back opposite and equal to the hips.

The opening of the hips for the runner can add 3 to 6 inches with each
same length of step.

>
> > But perhaps some of us would like to *run* 30% grades - because they are
> > a challenge. And by the time one gets to 30% grades (maybe a little
> > above), it's lower energy cost for elites to walk also. If the race is
> > short, they run; if it's a few hours, they walk - depends on how much

ÿ > energy they can expend.

This is where I teach people to keep their center of gravity over the
front foot. The idea again is that even with short running steps, one
is falling through (and up) the hill. Again I wrote in the past about
man being four footed, meaning that the runner's arms are as important
a part of running as the legs and must be coordinated (moving in the
direction of perfectly) to more move symmetrically asymmetrically.

>
> I ran on some pretty steep grades today. Short steps, but also very long ground
> contact time compared to running on flat surfaces.
>
> > some mechanics. dunno. BUT, I still run a wide variety of paces at about
> > 175-180

>
> Well, so do -- I think it's fair to all the range from 10 minutes per mile
> down to 6 minutes per mile or so a "wide variety".
>
> What I'm not in favor of is trying to force everyone into the same mold because
> of the fact that one day, Jack Daniels noticed that elites turn over at about

ÿ 180.

Actually Michael Pollack and his team did the research on elite and
good runners back in the early 70's. Also different was the angle
between the upper and lower leg on impact and also the angle between
thigh and lower leg on the swing through.

Again for me it's not trying to force anyone into the same mold.
However, I prefer to show the difference and have people experience
them and then see which one they prefer to move towards. Again, it's
about helping people use thinking mind and thinking body. It's about
someone realizing that if there's a correct way of doing something,
then I can get better and better at it by practicing it and playing
with it over a long period of time.


Anyway, thanks for raising your questions and observations.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I need to dissect this next paragraph because it seems contrary, at
least what I do and understand.

> Going up a hill, I have people take very small steps and a quick
> cadence and that the ball/heel touches down every step.


Your suggesting that going up a steep incline my heel should touch with
each step? My heel never touches and if it did it would seem to put too
much tension on the calf/achilles and frankly injury prone.

> The feeling is that there's no push off.


It's probably the semantics that bother me. Sure when I'm zoning out and
feeling strong I don't notice the push off but that's because I'm
ignoring paying any attention. When I'm doing it for hours and I'm
growing tired there is never a feeling "there's no push off."


> Rather the lean from the ankle stays the
> same as on level ground and this is done by taking the shorter step.
> The feeling becomes one of falling through or up the hill since the
> center of gravity remains falling forward.


Again, the notion of falling uphill is a catchy phrase but oxymoronic
for me. Sounds like a psychological attempt to convince a person running
uphill that he is really going downhill and the my heavy breathing is
the guy next to me. No flippancy meant but does not match my corner of
the planet. :)



> The
> other problem for many people going up hill is that they look down
> rather than keeping the head erect and eyes on the horizon or slightly
> looking up the hill.


I'm guilty of having my eyes look down but I still contend I keep good
form. For long uphills looking to the top is demoralizing. I tend to
look just a few yards in front. In addition I run in trails and if I
have to be careful of rocks and roots.

Some irony to this discussion is in my long races I don't run those
severe uphills, I power hike them. I run them in training to build
overall leg strength. Yes, I understand specificity and also hike the
same hills. What I have noticed is many of may races is that people
severely overstride while hiking up. There is this notion whether it's
conscious or unconscious, that since one is walking/hiking you need to
do it faster and many tend to take much bigger strides. These same
people will run up with short strides, go figure.

-DougF
 
On 2004-08-31, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
[big snip]
> Donavan, I continue to attempt to share what I've experienced and
> what I've attempted to make sense out of so that people can run more
> easily and without serious injury. It's been twenty years of
> attempting to share a perspective of running lightly over the surface
> of the earth.


I've snipped the above, because I more or less agree with it -- the bounding
action we often see in beginners, typically taking 150-160 or so strides per
minute at 8 minutes per mile faster is undesirable.

> Slowly the shoe people are coming to see what Steve Robbins and others
> have researched that thicker soled shoes often create running
> injuries. Why does Amby Burfoot write an article about running
> barefoot.


Doesn't she work for Nike ? Most of her articles are infomercials for Nike
these days.

> Why do two of Nike's top researchers create the Free,
> equivalent to running barefoot….
> and talking about having less injuries
> with this kind of shoe.


Because there's a market for it. Sorry, that's my cynical view.

[snip: more I agree with]

> to run in proper form and style. Don't show me that I'm wrong,
> rather show me a better way to understand what I may not have been
> able to explain clearly or give an image or picture or perceptions
> that allows someone to learn what they need to be able to improve
> their running and form.


My argument essentially boils down to this: at very low speeds, one can save
energy by increasing ground contact time, which means that stride rate (hence
the work accelerating the legs back and forth) is reduced without creating
vertical motion. But this is only possible at very low speeds.

> Going up a hill, I have people take very small steps and a quick
> cadence


First, up a shallow hill, cadence should be normal, and strides should be
short. Up any hill, it's good to think in terms of short strides.

On very steep hills, cadence will reduce and ground contact time will increase:
you're basically eliminating all up-and-down vertical motion by almost never
leaving the ground. Since you want to climb the hill, the last thing you want
is downward vertical motion with a step, so you get your front foot down almost
as soon as the back foot goes up. Of course this requires short steps.

> and that the ball/heel touches down every step. The feeling


No. On a very steep hill (20% grade or more, for example), you cannot touch
your heel. It stretches your calf too much. You land on the ball of your foot,
like a 100m sprinter.

> I'm saying that the quick steps remain the same through the hill. The


I'm not sure that we're talking about the same sorts of hills though. It sounds
like you're talking about moderate hills (say less than 10% grade) where I'd
agree with everything you've said.

> To some of your thoughts below, I prefer to get people to practice a
> quicker cadence so they get a sense of their lightness and let go of
> their lumbering.


I agree. One thing I do with beginners is have them do strides. One guy I'm
training started with a slow stride rate and now, not only is his turnover on
the strides as fast as mine, his cadence is also nice and smooth.

[snip]
> Again the idea is to approximate 180 steps. People will do what they
> do regarding their cadence. I'm saying and will continue to say by
> getting people to increase their cadence it's not to increase their
> cadence but to give them the experience and feeling of how much easier
> it can be to run when one gets away from the lumbering, bean bag
> landings that most beginning older runners experience as they start to
> run.


Yes, I agree with all of this. In general, I think it's a good idea to
eliminate bounding. My argument has been that one can use a slightly lower
cadence at very low speeds without bounding (via increased ground contact time.
I don't know what the exact number is, maybe about 170 (I could measure it),
but it is some way below 180. This takes less effort, because one doesn't need
to accelerate the limbs as rapidly.

I think that if you were to watch this slower cadence, you wouldn't think it
looked unduly slow-- you'd need to count it to notice. This is part of the
problem with being in a verbal medium -- we know what bounding is when we see
it, but expressing it clearly is quite difficult.


>> I spin the wheels at several strides per minute higher than that, closer to
>> 190 during interval work. But most of my training runs are closer to 180
>> (still faster). It gradually drops below 180 (closer to 170 or so) as my
>> pace goes down to 10 minutes per mile. The mechanism behind this is
>> increased ground contact time -- I am 6 foot, so the extra work in moving
>> legs around is a waste
>> ÿ when I can take long strides without leaving the ground.

>
> For me the strides get longer because I am falling faster. The faster


In fact in general, most of the pace increase is a result of longer strides.
But at high speeds, turnover can increase slightly too (usually at around 1
mile race pace)

>> I'm sure it does. Again, I think height has a lot to do with it -- taller
>> runners have to do more work accelerating their legs back and forth, and can
>> take very long strides without leaving the ground -- so they can more easily
>> afford a longer ground contact time, but can't as easily afford a rapid
>> ÿ stride rate.

>
> I think that your reasoning loses me here. The idea is that I want
> minimal ground contact time, all the time.


Depends on what the goal is.

> The more the lower leg
> tucks behind the thigh, i.e. heel closer to the butt; the quicker I
> can move my leg through the range of motion, and place it down.


Yes, if moving your leg quickly is the goal. So a 100m sprinter will use an
exaggerated tuck, because they need to move their legs really quickly, and
aren't interested in conserving energy.

Someone who wants to use less energy may not want to minimise ground contact
time.

> Again for me it's not trying to force anyone into the same mold.
> However, I prefer to show the difference and have people experience
> them and then see which one they prefer to move towards. Again, it's


I think this is a good approach. It's undesirable (and arguably dangerous) to
blindly throw around some arbitrary number (180) as a gold standard and require
everyone to adhere to that. But I have no disagreement with generally
suggesting that beginners learn to "run lightly", and taking on the somewhat
difficult task of putting it in words.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> On 2004-08-31, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Slowly the shoe people are coming to see what Steve Robbins and others
> > have researched that thicker soled shoes often create running
> > injuries. Why does Amby Burfoot write an article about running
> > barefoot.

>
> Doesn't she work for Nike ? Most of her articles are infomercials for Nike
> these days.



Donovan, Amby Burfoot's a guy - he's actually a very well-known
marathoner who has won Boston and at one point was a second off
the American record. He was a best friend of Bill Rodgers, being
superior to Bill for a long time before Rodgers suddenly came out of
nowhere one sunny Boston day, ready to fufill his fate as a great of
the sport after years of messing around, off and on, even smoking
and stuff. Amby was probably a big part of Rodgers deciding to
finally really make a go at running. Bill idolized him in many ways.


cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON)
www.allfalldown.org
www.absolutelyaccurate.com
 
In article <[email protected]>, Doug Freese
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I've been running this hill for 15 years as I do 80%
> >> of my ultra training on this mother. I do use small steps, learned
> >> that 14 years ago but I can assure you my cadence is much slower.

> >
> > For
> > curiosity, does your cadence vary between a long (say, 2+hrs), gentle
> > run, and a short, fast run (say, 45 min) - or even long vs short, same
> > pace.

>
> Something must change. :) If I'm doing a single lap each 2.5(a minimal
> paking lot at the mid-way point) miles is about 30-31 minutes. When I'm
> doing repeats for hours I'm about 33-35 minutes. I don't change my
> stride length so I must be cadence but I'm sure that cadence is much
> slower than level groound.
>
> -DF

\

Doug,

In my mind's eye, the cadence can remain the same while the lean from
the ankle can be a quarter of an inch forward giving several inches
increase in stride length.

I've found that as people tire, the head drops and that throws the
center of gravity off and there is much more effort expended, trapezius
is used (wastefully) to hold up the head also expending wasteful
energy.

Regarding looking up the hill, I don't look up, the idea is to keep my
head balanaced on the atlas, top of the first cervical vertebrae that
supports the skull.

From my hiking in the Sierras, I know my cadence slows down especially
when at it for several hours at altitude, knowing that I'm pacing
myself.

What I was speaking of regarding letting the foot go down to the heel
on a steeper incline, as mentioned might not happen because of the
steepness of the incline. At a certain steepness one is most almost
using their hands to help, or there is a lean to keep one's center of
gravity in front of the foot but not so much as to have the feet slide
out front under.

I'm looking forward to seeing Dot's pictures so as to get a better idea
of a steeper grade. If you have some pictures, I'd be interested in
seeing them to get a visual of what you mean by different degreed
grades. Thanks.

In health and on the run,
Ozzie Gontang
Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975
Maintainer - rec.running FAQ
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
Mindful Running:
http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp
 
Ozzie Gontang wrote:

>
> I'm looking forward to seeing Dot's pictures so as to get a better idea
> of a steeper grade.


I actually posted the steep hill ones in another thread last weekend
(tied up much of this week). ("Pace/cadence" in response to Phil M.'s
question about downhill) The pictures are annotated, but it was a long
post. If you want the more detailed interpretation with respect to
downhill (and some uphill), it's back there (8/30). But here's the pictures.

http://home.att.net/~akrunning/Hills/index.html

Not sure if these are what you meant by running on all fours or not ;)
(I hope you can get to them without having to register)
http://www.adn.com/sports/v-enlarge/story/5371234p-5309836c.html
http://www.adn.com/sports/v-enlarge/story/5371228p-5309856c.html


These are from my 10% gravel road - about 800 ft in 1.5 miles. I can't
run the whole thing at once yet, but much better (cooler) today than my
first try when it was hot (just 2 1-min walk breaks on way up - about 31
min). Just my size - big enough to be a challenge, but gentle
(relatively speaking) enough for me to mostly run. Unlike Doug, I wasn't
willing to ruin a perfectly good run by counting steps, and my hrm is
dead ;) (These might show a little of why I like hills. One of those
"priceless" days :)

http://home.att.net/~akrunning/HP_Hill/index.html


If you have some pictures, I'd be interested in
> seeing them to get a visual of what you mean by different degreed
> grades. Thanks.


I'd be interested in seeing some of Doug's hills and trails also.

Dot

--
"You try to slow down and enjoy it. You try to look at the scenery. But
your brain can kind of go blank. All you want to do is tell your feet to
keep working."
-Cedar Petrosius, women's winner 2004 Matanuska Peak Challenge (14mi,
9000ft up and down)
 
On 2004-09-05, Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
> Ozzie Gontang wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm looking forward to seeing Dot's pictures so as to get a better idea
>> of a steeper grade.

>
> I actually posted the steep hill ones in another thread last weekend
> (tied up much of this week). ("Pace/cadence" in response to Phil M.'s
> question about downhill) The pictures are annotated, but it was a long
> post. If you want the more detailed interpretation with respect to
> downhill (and some uphill), it's back there (8/30). But here's the pictures.
>
> http://home.att.net/~akrunning/Hills/index.html


That's beautiful. I can see why you don't do much running indoors on the
treadmill -- if I lived there, I'd want to be outdoors too.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
Doug Freese wrote:

> I'm guilty of having my eyes look down but I still contend I keep good
> form. For long uphills looking to the top is demoralizing. I tend to
> look just a few yards in front. In addition I run in trails and if I
> have to be careful of rocks and roots.


For some of your steeper trails, I'm sure that looking straight ahead
*is* looking at the ground a few yards in advance. In quirky areas, I
will look down at each foot - esp. if the exposure is nasty - but I
usually crawl those. I've noticed the confident, lead-packers (well, one
of them, anyway) would run right over some of that stuff.

>
> Some irony to this discussion is in my long races I don't run those
> severe uphills, I power hike them. I run them in training to build
> overall leg strength. Yes, I understand specificity and also hike the
> same hills. What I have noticed is many of may races is that people
> severely overstride while hiking up. There is this notion whether it's
> conscious or unconscious, that since one is walking/hiking you need to
> do it faster and many tend to take much bigger strides. These same
> people will run up with short strides, go figure.


Do you have pics? I've observed the same thing, but if I hike with the
same stride length that I run uphill, I'll be using a calendar for 5
miler. I find a longer (but not too long) stride while hiking uses some
different muscles, which is a purpose of walk break.

For curiosity, which of the following would you consider good/med/bad form?

http://home.att.net/~akrunning/Hills/index0002.html
(upper left picture - this was fairly typical posture in that race)

http://home.att.net/~akrunning/WMRT2003/index.html
2nd on right (USA guy in middle as well as 2 others)
bottom right

I have my thoughts on the obvious, just wasn't sure how you might
consider the various forms. Some of the last ones might be because of
snow, but there's enough people that were reasonably vertical, that I
don't think it's completely the snow. (IIRC, all the sr men were pretty
vertical and running as they charged the hill)

I appreciate any insights :)

Dot

--
"You try to slow down and enjoy it. You try to look at the scenery. But
your brain can kind of go blank. All you want to do is tell your feet to
keep working."
-Cedar Petrosius, women's winner 2004 Matanuska Peak Challenge (14mi,
9000ft up and down)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:

> http://home.att.net/~akrunning/Hills/index0002.html
> (upper left picture - this was fairly typical posture in that race)


I for one like her form (upper left) better than his. :) Running wise
too. He looks like he's taking too big of a step and must lean on his
knee to help hoist him up.

> http://home.att.net/~akrunning/WMRT2003/index.html
> 2nd on right (USA guy in middle as well as 2 others)
> bottom right


Same with USA Jr... calls on a lot of lifting to get the body on top of
the forward leg. Plus, leaning so far forward might risk slipping the
rear foot downslope since there's so of the body's center of gravity
over it.

Just my 2? from drawing on my backpacking days.
 
"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Freese wrote:
>
>> I'm guilty of having my eyes look down but I still contend I keep
>> good form. For long uphills looking to the top is demoralizing. I
>> tend to look just a few yards in front. In addition I run in trails
>> and if I have to be careful of rocks and roots.

>
> I've noticed the confident, lead-packers (well, one of them, anyway)
> would run right over some of that stuff.


What is really incredible is the way some of those people can fly on the
rugged downhills. I'm not rookie to rugged downs but some of my running
mates go with what I consider reckless abandon. They simply leap and
then look to see where they will put a foot. I tend to look, damn near
stop before I leap.


> Do you have pics?


Just nudes? :)

> I've observed the same thing, but if I hike with the
> same stride length that I run uphill, I'll be using a calendar for 5
> miler. I find a longer (but not too long) stride while hiking uses
> some different muscles, which is a purpose of walk break.


I contend that stride cadence should be close whether running or hiking.
In either case if your stride is too long you are inefficient and
wasting energy. It's a little bit of guilt trip that while hiking you
need a larger stride.



> For curiosity, which of the following would you consider good/med/bad
> form?
>
> http://home.att.net/~akrunning/Hills/index0002.html
> (upper left picture - this was fairly typical posture in that race)


Too long a stride and to compensate he is pushing off with his hands.
His back is damn near parallel to the hill - not ideal form in my book.


>
> http://home.att.net/~akrunning/WMRT2003/index.html
> 2nd on right (USA guy in middle as well as 2 others)
> bottom right


I like the second picture in the right. The first guy with the red
gloves has what I would consider good form while the guy immediately
behind him is using the push off and I consider less good form.
Obviously they are close so both forms are propelling them up the hill.
I wonder who felt better when they crested to hill and returned to
running? Anyway, I have seen many runners use the knee push and do very
well. I would assume one could perfect this method and do well. I have
in later stages of a long race pushed from my knees for a break. The
next step was on all fours. :)



> I have my thoughts on the obvious, just wasn't sure how you might
> consider the various forms. Some of the last ones might be because of
> snow, but there's enough people that were reasonably vertical, that I
> don't think it's completely the snow. (IIRC, all the sr men were
> pretty vertical and running as they charged the hill)


I think they both work when perfected but I'm old school and tell myself
that better form during the race will conserve energy needed for the
tail end of the race.

As tough as this race is per step I wonder what their form would look
like if they had to do the course 2 or 4 times. :)

-DF
 
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> That's beautiful. I can see why you don't do much running indoors on the
> treadmill -- if I lived there, I'd want to be outdoors too.
>


Thanks. You can see why I'm fussy about what races I enter. These routes
are local, free, and available when I am. Races are usually 1-1.5 hr drive.

Dot

--
"You try to slow down and enjoy it. You try to look at the scenery. But
your brain can kind of go blank. All you want to do is tell your feet to
keep working."
-Cedar Petrosius, women's winner 2004 Matanuska Peak Challenge (14mi,
9000ft up and down)