I don't understand. A person has a fixed running "economy"? Mustn't someone run faster; i.e., unnaturally and without "economy" to arrive at a new "economy"? There's a fatal flaw of logic in this article.
2
Never run on concrete, asphalt or other hard surfaces. I am 79 years old and have runner's knee in both knees. The cartilage is cracked and broken, reduced to "gravel" as my surgeon called it. I ran 5 miles a day, 5 days a week, and 6 or 7 miles a day on weekends. on city streets and suburban roads, for more than 20 years. I used to get "runner's high" and feel like my feet weren't touching the ground. Now I can't run at all. I can't walk more than a block without stopping. I can no longer hike or go on long walks for pleasure. My mobility is greatly reduced. I recommend rowing, kayaking, bicycling, and swimming, for exercise -- anything but running. Please, learn from my mistakes.
2
@Roger Angle Sorry, but your mistake was landing on your heels- not running on concrete or hard surfaces. That is what causes the knee problems as the impact forces from heel striking go up your legs into your knees and lower back. If you land on your forefoot, you will have minimal forces to your knees and hips and lower back. Don't believe me? Try this experiment: while barefoot, hang from a pull up bar a foot above the ground. Let go and land purposely on your heels. Hurts right? Now do the same and land on your forefeet. No problem, right? Now why shouldn't you run/walk this way?
3
This could be a great experiment if the researchers would test sensible changes in cadence instead of the huge changes they used in this study (8% and 16%). For an experienced runner, a 3% change, say from 175 to 180 steps per minute, is a big change, hard to hold without a metronome. But it's the kind of change a runner might try to make in hopes of running more efficiently. An 8% change, on the other hand, will take almost anyone into ridiculous territory, so far from their natural cadence that it can't possibly be more efficient.
4
Poor posture, the reason for most variations in good reflex running form, is unconsciously generated, and is not improved by the application of effort. Telling a person who is hunched over to stand up straight will only get them to add effort to counter a condition of misplaced effort. The result will be increased compression and decreased mobility.
Telling runners to alter their running strides, without effectively dealing with the poor posture that makes their strides aberrant, will inevitably worsen their running. This is true, of course, of most running methods, that only deal with positioning, not with the posture that creates positioning (always a bad thing in posture and in running). In good running form, there can be no positioning, as everything adapts constantly when posture is good.
www.alexandertechnique-running.com
5
Running uphill, downhill, flat terrain, asphalt, sandy, ice, snow, rocky, leaves in fall, temperature, etc., etc. all requires different brain and muscle interaction. Follow your own instincts rather than foolish research.
Running has crippled both my knees. Never run on concrete or other hard surfaces. I can barely walk. Running breaks down the cartilage and it never grows back.
3
You might want to look into Essential Somatics. Humans have been running since the dawn of time. We humans in modern times are in constant states of tension in our bodies, that makes running with good form a challenge. It could really help! I was hit by a car while riding my bike and was such a mess I could barely walk. Now I run, walk and hike with joy and freedom.
@Roger Angle Sorry- heel striking is what causes the knee problems. Land on your forefeet and you won't have that problem. It is that simple.
I don't really see how this study is very valid or all that interesting, to be completely honest.
Of course altering your stride away from its default would be inefficient the very first time you do it. It's the first time you're doing it. You're focusing on using your muscles in a different and unnatural way. Of course it'll be taxing.
There needs to be some sort of follow-up study that tracks runner performance using a different stride cadence for several follow-up sessions over a series of several weeks. Then economy would need to be compared against each participant's default baseline economy measure. My guess is that some of the participants in this hypothetical study would see benefits, and others wouldn't. It'd be muddy result that wouldn't be easy to sell to major news publications, but would at least better reflect reality.
Of course altering your stride away from its default would be inefficient the very first time you do it. It's the first time you're doing it. You're focusing on using your muscles in a different and unnatural way. Of course it'll be taxing.
There needs to be some sort of follow-up study that tracks runner performance using a different stride cadence for several follow-up sessions over a series of several weeks. Then economy would need to be compared against each participant's default baseline economy measure. My guess is that some of the participants in this hypothetical study would see benefits, and others wouldn't. It'd be muddy result that wouldn't be easy to sell to major news publications, but would at least better reflect reality.
10
I hope no one will read the results of this study and conclude that they should not, for example, shift to a forefoot stride, because the way they "naturally" run is the most efficient way. We learn to run in a cultural context. In most western countries, this includes wearing shoes, which allow heel-striking to occur. Many of us cannot heel-strike for weeks and months without incurring injury; adopting a forefoot pattern allows me to have run for many years in a row without a single injury of the sort that used to plague my running schedule.
I'd also like to point out that all the people in this study were already fit. It's likely that many of the errors I see beginning runners adopt wouldn't be a problem for these runners because they're already most likely in a good neutral position thanks to good posture and strength. Many people cultivate a really unhealthy running stride. Common errors I see include such things as as sagging in the upper body thanks to a lack of core strength, sinking in the hips with a waggle-type motion on each footfall, and springing along like one is auditioning for the nutcracker ballet rather than landing lightly with the feet under the hips. Check out videos of ultramarathon runners during a race, and see how many exhibit these habits. They are all running in the most neutral position possible. A solid neutral running position can be learned, and it is worth it.
I'd also like to point out that all the people in this study were already fit. It's likely that many of the errors I see beginning runners adopt wouldn't be a problem for these runners because they're already most likely in a good neutral position thanks to good posture and strength. Many people cultivate a really unhealthy running stride. Common errors I see include such things as as sagging in the upper body thanks to a lack of core strength, sinking in the hips with a waggle-type motion on each footfall, and springing along like one is auditioning for the nutcracker ballet rather than landing lightly with the feet under the hips. Check out videos of ultramarathon runners during a race, and see how many exhibit these habits. They are all running in the most neutral position possible. A solid neutral running position can be learned, and it is worth it.
8
I'm glad these scientists did a study to prove that my body knows how to function without their proof or confirmation. How else would I know?
Next, can they do a study on the right way to drink a glass of water? I've been spilling water all over myself with every sip my my whole life. Unless a scientist does a peer-reviewed study, I'l never know anything!
Next, can they do a study on the right way to drink a glass of water? I've been spilling water all over myself with every sip my my whole life. Unless a scientist does a peer-reviewed study, I'l never know anything!
This research seemingly reveals it is counterproductive to alter stride length or frequency. This is true for the two minute time period during which these people altered their running form. However, this research does not investigate whether alteration of running stride or frequency can aid in efficiency over the long term. Perhaps altering the stride for some people with poor form would be beneficial after 50 or 100 practice sessions.
6
I have been running for 58 years. At age 73 i "run like an old man". Short strides low to the ground. I run exactly the same "course" every time and record my time in a log. This Summer i have been experimenting with modifying my stride in an effort to run less like an old man in an effort to improve efficiency. I have experimented with three variances: lengthen the stride, increase frequency of strides and both. The attempts at increasing frequency left me too exhausted to continue. Lengthening stride on the other hand was something i was able to maintain for my entire "course" with significant improvement in elapsed time.
3
as a lapsed triathlete and marathon runner, I'm amazed nowhere was the critical link between cadence and breathing made. I've always thought people's cadence followed their breathing if running long distances.
where I'm going is altering footfall speed would have absolutely changed the # of breaths/minute they took and I doubt anyone could be as efficient if that were changed from what their body told them was right.
I'm an engineer but too much focus on numbers and not enough on feel. you run how it feels best to your body unless racing. aikido is similar except in place of your body sensing your best pace when done right, its you body sensing your uke and harmonizing to most efficently redirect their energy of motion to where you want it to go. its all based on feel. just like running. thats why a 3 year old never needs be told how to run. I'd say they just do it, but somebody already beat me to that one.
where I'm going is altering footfall speed would have absolutely changed the # of breaths/minute they took and I doubt anyone could be as efficient if that were changed from what their body told them was right.
I'm an engineer but too much focus on numbers and not enough on feel. you run how it feels best to your body unless racing. aikido is similar except in place of your body sensing your best pace when done right, its you body sensing your uke and harmonizing to most efficently redirect their energy of motion to where you want it to go. its all based on feel. just like running. thats why a 3 year old never needs be told how to run. I'd say they just do it, but somebody already beat me to that one.
1
I have a running coach who altered my stride - so will have to show him the article.
But the qualities that above all others define runners are patience and endurance, so what we all want to know is (1) how modifying your stride affects economy after months of regular training and (2) whether modifying stride length could be useful for gaining some other advantage. After all, intermittently speeding up (i.e. running intervals) or randomly speeding up and slowing down (i.e. fartlek) will also negatively impact running economy, but they are valuable methods in the runner's training regime.
1
It takes time to learn your stride. And no, there is no natural or unnatural stride, there's only the one that allows you to finish that marathon or half --or whatever.
I forefoot strike when I race shorter distance, but have noticed a slight heel strike when I run longer distances. Whichever one produces the desired result is the best one. IMO
I forefoot strike when I race shorter distance, but have noticed a slight heel strike when I run longer distances. Whichever one produces the desired result is the best one. IMO
4
Several observations about the study:
On a treadmill, the ground is moving toward you and your stride is altered vs what it would be if you were running across terrain
When your comfortable routine stride is altered by a metronome or anything else, the elegant relaxation of antagonist muscles is likely changed such that
your agonist muscles are fighting a resistance that would not be present if a period of training altered stride length to the point it became automatic.
On a treadmill, the ground is moving toward you and your stride is altered vs what it would be if you were running across terrain
When your comfortable routine stride is altered by a metronome or anything else, the elegant relaxation of antagonist muscles is likely changed such that
your agonist muscles are fighting a resistance that would not be present if a period of training altered stride length to the point it became automatic.
My son loves being outside in the woods, and in middle school cross country running seemed like a natural fit. Unfortunately, the coaches told my son his stride was "wrong" and that he had to shorten it. After a couple years of abiding by the coaches' edicts he decided he wasn't a good runner and gave up cross country. He was perplexed last year when he went running on his own and ended up with an impressive time for his 5K distance given that he hadn't trained in two years and had been convinced his stride was bad. I'm sure the biggest factor in the improvement in his speed was physical maturity, not stride length. I am sad that he gave up a sport he loved just because the coaches, with no objective evidence, gave in to the latest fad instead of allowing my son to listen to his own body. I'm hoping he'll eventually get the confidence to run regularly for fun and fitness, and try to overcome the incorrect assessment of those coaches. I'm hoping this study will help convince coaches to stop trying to change students' natural strides.
7
The study seems flawed. For one thing, the two-minute modification of pace necessitated a sudden adjustment to an accustomed pattern in which the runners had, over longer periods, naturally made adjustments for efficiency. To compare the efficiencies of the two paces meaningfully would necessitate that runners adjust to each pace over a long period of time--weeks, or even months. For another, the use of treadmills rather than outdoor surface changes the nature of the running fundamentally, so that the results have limited application to actual running on a track or trail..
6
Alright, I started running as an overweight teenager in 1975, and have been running, after 15 years of heavy distance running, then walking and now back to running exclusively; I try to never pay attention to the so-called experts with two many calculations.
I don't worry about form, what I found over time is that you settle into a comfortable rhythm and form as time goes on that fits your size and body.
I never worry about speed or breaking personal records, because unless you are going to win or have a chance of winning a race, forget it and enjoy the run.
I'm 62 now and it is a pleasurably, if not a little more work running as it always has been, and the people that I read that say walking or riding a bike is better for your joints, that's good for them, but it's because they either don't run or have the dedication or the drive to get out there every day push out a grueling, if not enjoyable long easy distance run.
I don't worry about form, what I found over time is that you settle into a comfortable rhythm and form as time goes on that fits your size and body.
I never worry about speed or breaking personal records, because unless you are going to win or have a chance of winning a race, forget it and enjoy the run.
I'm 62 now and it is a pleasurably, if not a little more work running as it always has been, and the people that I read that say walking or riding a bike is better for your joints, that's good for them, but it's because they either don't run or have the dedication or the drive to get out there every day push out a grueling, if not enjoyable long easy distance run.
4
They altered stride length by either 8 or 16%, and measured O2 consumption over just 2 minutes. That's a heck of a shift in stride length, especially at constant speed. (Just try the test yourself, on a city block.) I really doubt that I could get feeling "right" with such a shift, in only 2 minutes. From the paper, which thankfully is openly available at the link in the article, it seems that this protocol is similar to those used by others. That doesn't make it any less relevant, though. This is a classic case of doing an experiment that can be done easily with the resources at hand -- treadmill, volunteers, students to set things up -- but I have a hard time thinking the results are relevant. Sure, the results are publishable in a specialty journal, but do they deserve space in the nytimes?
4
Rang false to my experience. I had always found that running, instead of alleviating my mild chronic lower back pain, exacerbated it. I tried different shoes, prescription orthotics, PT, stretching, different combinations of all of these--zero improvement. Only after Alexander Technique training did my pain subside, and I now find that I run with shorter strides and improved form--after a run my back feels relaxed and loosened instead of strained and tight.
1
changing your musculature can change you stride and have profound effects on stride and times. This is especially true for older runners who's calf and gluts have undergone the typical age related shrinking.
of course, a short study could never observe this effect.
of course, a short study could never observe this effect.
1
I love how all the non-experts are so quick to defend what they already believe about exercise and health. Apparently your diets and workouts are not producing enough vitamins Curiosity and Humility.
2
Why run? I see plenty of longtime runners only in their 50s now looking into having one (or both) of their knees replaced.
Cycling, or better yet, swimming laps are both excellent for developing cardiovascular fitness, without all the repetitive impact trauma on the lower extremity joints.
Cycling, or better yet, swimming laps are both excellent for developing cardiovascular fitness, without all the repetitive impact trauma on the lower extremity joints.
Runners who have been running for a long time and haven't gotten injured, know or learn quickly that common sense and listening to your body plays a lot into the longevity of running and health.
I have always found people such as yourself who seem to look for excuses or reason to put running down, are the ones who don't have the fortitude and perseverance to get out there and run everyday.
I have always found people such as yourself who seem to look for excuses or reason to put running down, are the ones who don't have the fortitude and perseverance to get out there and run everyday.
7
To an avid runner, cycling is just something you do on your off days. I swim on the days I don't run, which is essentially a day off (or feels like one). Running is tough, if it wasn't the cycling industry wouldn't be so lucrative.
4
Seventy four years old and still running semi-seriously after starting in high school. It may be partially good genes, but even more it's listening to the body and not pushing past its limits, particularly with respect to distance.
Running high-intensity intervals on a soft artificial surface can go a long way to maintaining a high level of aerobic capacity. while avoiding joint damage. Cross-training on elliptical machines and timed lap swimming, as a temporary replacement for running, particularly whenever even mild joint discomfort makes an appearance, helps too.
Running high-intensity intervals on a soft artificial surface can go a long way to maintaining a high level of aerobic capacity. while avoiding joint damage. Cross-training on elliptical machines and timed lap swimming, as a temporary replacement for running, particularly whenever even mild joint discomfort makes an appearance, helps too.
5
Sorry, but I got to "[t]hey then had each volunteer run on a treadmill" and just started to laugh at the irrelevance of this study. For many runners, running on a treadmill is not synonymous with running; it's something you do when it's pouring rain or it's icy or the temperature is well below freezing and you need to do something to keep from going crazy. Treadmills can totally mess with your form. Indeed, I gave up on them quite a while ago, after concluding I was more likely to suffer to suffer an injury while using one. I'd rather suffer through the discomfort of bad weather than take that chance.
Beyond that, although there may not be any "platonic ideal running form that everyone should adopt," there are certainly a number of bad form habits that some runners need to break if they want to reduce the risk of injury and run more efficiently.
Finally, good running form is about a WHOLE lot more than stride length and cadence.
Btw, I'm 67 and run a couple of marathons a year. I credit the ability to do that (and remain relatively injury free) primarily to a focus on form.
Beyond that, although there may not be any "platonic ideal running form that everyone should adopt," there are certainly a number of bad form habits that some runners need to break if they want to reduce the risk of injury and run more efficiently.
Finally, good running form is about a WHOLE lot more than stride length and cadence.
Btw, I'm 67 and run a couple of marathons a year. I credit the ability to do that (and remain relatively injury free) primarily to a focus on form.
5
@M Quinn Wrong- treadmills are the best way to train- you have an even surface, no cars to deal with, no pollution, no sun damage. I have trained for 6 marathons running mostly on treadmills - best time 3:37. The treadmill is also a brutal coach if you set it fast enough.
I sought a grant from the Department of Silly Walks to develop an unnatural running stride but was told, alas, that running styles are outside their purview.
1
Agree ! Go with the natural way you run but when you get tired or sore or slightly injured , switch to low gear and shorten your strides and do walk run ratio so you keep running without injury ....short stride slow down is injury prevention .
3
Short stride slow down is good advice !
As someone who has coached runners for many years, this article completely misses the point. There is a big difference between cadence and "form." All runners would benefit from running with optimal form, i.e., good posture, relaxed shoulders, arms not moving from side to side. Cadence is something else entirely. And the "160 steps per minute rule" seems to be based on elite athletes racing at the highest levels -- not necessarily the cadence that a novice runner would need to jog a few miles after a long day at work!
6
Is this the worst pseudoscience health nyt article ever or do researchers not consider instant modification versus long term practice?
1) Our natural stride is our most efficient and most practiced technique. OF COURSE!
2) Instantaneously deviating from this makes us less efficient and more tired. OF COURSE!
If we had a practiced tennis swing, and we started swinging faster or increased the stroke follow through. Would we become more tired?
Can modifying cadence and stride length help LONG TERM running skill level? This article tells us absolutely nothing.
If we could only use the technique we were born with in our DNA... It'd be a pretty boring marathon ground.
1) Our natural stride is our most efficient and most practiced technique. OF COURSE!
2) Instantaneously deviating from this makes us less efficient and more tired. OF COURSE!
If we had a practiced tennis swing, and we started swinging faster or increased the stroke follow through. Would we become more tired?
Can modifying cadence and stride length help LONG TERM running skill level? This article tells us absolutely nothing.
If we could only use the technique we were born with in our DNA... It'd be a pretty boring marathon ground.
11
What would happened if a runner took a few weeks or months to get used to a new stride, would they adjust and become more efficient ?
3
I don't think a short stride equates to slow running. Many fast runners have short, quick strides. If you watch Joan Benoit Samuelson run, she appears to have a very quick short stride. I've been running for over 40 years and have always had a short stride. I've had very few injuries and the ones I did have were due to a heavy racing schedule. I've placed in races in my 20s to early 50s (though I'm not in the fastest group). Talking with other runners over many years, they always advised against over striding because it can lead injury. I agree.
3
The best running I ever did was away from advice offered in newspapers.
6
So as a no-longer older runner, I have to question the reality of all the studies on running and health and optimum running - are runners healthier because they run or runners because they are healthy? In this case, how was efficiency determined? Most power output per O2 or what? How do you trade off impact for speed? This article could have a much better job of explaining exactly what was learned from the study and whether we should believe it.
I realize that this study was mainly on stride and length and to not attempt to alter what comes naturally. However, another issue needs to be addressed.........foot strike. I altered my foot strike from a heel to a more midfoot/forefoot strike and bend my knees more and I have much less injuries. I also went to a zero drop shoe (currently Altra's) which helps in this regard. My current foot strike minimizes the jarring that my legs took when I was heel striking.
7
@mikiee You are 100% absolutely correct.
Stride length is a very basic mechanical consideration - that offers the possibility of insight seldom touched on.
The idea of an automatic default to the natural stride length is appealing, - but I believe lacking. If indeed all the muscles are fully relaxed with no hyper tonus due to overactive muscle spindle cells full movement and maximum available extension is available, and stride length CAN be optimal.
There seems to be a lack of consideration as to the effect of "tight" or rather shortened hamstring and a shortened stride. When the hamstring is shortened it will give up a percentage of available work producing contraction - and require additional energy expenditure in quads extension of the lower leg.
An additional consideration are the mechanics required to lift the toe on extension and the additional load placed on the anterior compartment - and possible compromised circulatory capacity.
In the case of the elderly suffering with hamstring overuse a shortened stride ( in a walking mode ) can be reduced to the range of 10 inches - at which point recovery from a stumble or minor balance issue can be impossible. This "shuffle gait" puts legions of elders at imminent risk of life changing falls.
A comprehensive attempt to preserve the maximum stride length would be of enormous benefit at any age.
The idea of an automatic default to the natural stride length is appealing, - but I believe lacking. If indeed all the muscles are fully relaxed with no hyper tonus due to overactive muscle spindle cells full movement and maximum available extension is available, and stride length CAN be optimal.
There seems to be a lack of consideration as to the effect of "tight" or rather shortened hamstring and a shortened stride. When the hamstring is shortened it will give up a percentage of available work producing contraction - and require additional energy expenditure in quads extension of the lower leg.
An additional consideration are the mechanics required to lift the toe on extension and the additional load placed on the anterior compartment - and possible compromised circulatory capacity.
In the case of the elderly suffering with hamstring overuse a shortened stride ( in a walking mode ) can be reduced to the range of 10 inches - at which point recovery from a stumble or minor balance issue can be impossible. This "shuffle gait" puts legions of elders at imminent risk of life changing falls.
A comprehensive attempt to preserve the maximum stride length would be of enormous benefit at any age.
1
Possibly stupid question, but... Does a study on running stride conducted primarily on a treadmill correlate to conditions found on normal running surfaces? I experience my stride and gait to be much different on a treadmill, and I also notice much more stress on my legs and feet as well. Treadmills are last resorts for me.
9
Well. I have a question, too. Why is your gait so much different on a TM? Seems the same to me.
I'm no expert, but is seems clear to me that on the TM I am essentially jumping up while the surface moves beneath me. Outside I must push myself forward with each stride, which feels different and harder, but more satisfying, than TM running.
Serendipitous that the NYT should publish this very day that this was a topic during my morning run. I happen to agree with the overall contention, that "what feels comfortable" it typically as close to "right" as a more coached running style. Of course there are exceptions, but in my modest experience, issues such as stride length and cadence when it comes to run fitness are insignificant factors compared to duration, intensity, and frequency of runs.
Agree with all the comments questioning ANY conclusions about running style based on a few days, and only involving treadmill running. The "researchers" who thought up this study seem blindingly naive. That doesn't mean that their conclusions ("listen to your body and do what's comfortable") are necessarily wrong, but that this "study" doesn't offer any meaningful evidence one way or another. Still, like many of Ms. Reynolds' articles, it's intriguing to read about and discuss.
2
If one is jogging or running for exercise and health, I think you naturally will find your stride after practicing enough and gaining strength and stamina. It is based on practice and persistence. Everyone's stride is about how long your legs are, what feels comfortable, how long you can run for. The warm up is the most important, after that, just go. Your legs and lungs will define your best stride. I am 5'2 so I'm not naturally fast but as a lifelong jogger I can find a brisk pace and keep it up for an hour, leaving me well worked but not dying (heat here in Florida notwithstanding) Like the shoe maker says, just do it.
If there is pain beyond the worked out feeling, then it's time to look into shoes, stride, speed etc.
If there is pain beyond the worked out feeling, then it's time to look into shoes, stride, speed etc.
1
I agree with your last sentence. Pain is how your body tells you you're doing something wrong and damaging. I found out the hard way that "just work through the pain" is seldom good advice especially if I'm feeling joint pain not just muscle soreness. Running on a sore knee or ankle, just makes the soreness and the injury that's causing it worse.
2
Everyone does not have the same running technique. Running methods vary among people and what is most effective for one person can be totally ineffective for someone else. As long as someone is running at all, they will find what works for them and what helps them be the best runner possible. http://www.orcuttfamilydentistry.com
When I first started running as an artsy 14-year old, I was the only kid on the track team who could draw a straight line but couldn't run one. Time and hard work improved that, but I'd never say the stride my body gravitated to was a good, natural idea or particularly efficient.
My arms also crossed my body too much, resulting in a swaying running form and much wasted energy, My coach had me turn out my hands a bit to break the habit, and I recall my forearms being sore for a few days while I adjusted, but I could feel the benefits. I was being pulled forward better without being wobbled to the sides and fighting myself.
In the park I run at now – 50 years later – I sometimes see other adults run with such flaws and want to call tips out to them. Some of us just don't have bodies that "get it" without adjustments. So I'm going to say "not so fast" on endorsing this study as a universal truth.
My arms also crossed my body too much, resulting in a swaying running form and much wasted energy, My coach had me turn out my hands a bit to break the habit, and I recall my forearms being sore for a few days while I adjusted, but I could feel the benefits. I was being pulled forward better without being wobbled to the sides and fighting myself.
In the park I run at now – 50 years later – I sometimes see other adults run with such flaws and want to call tips out to them. Some of us just don't have bodies that "get it" without adjustments. So I'm going to say "not so fast" on endorsing this study as a universal truth.
11
Amen to that. As a long ago middle distance runner and, briefly, a coach, I am also tempted to offer unsolicited advice. "Drop your shoulders!" "Keep your elbows at 90 degrees!" "Don't over-stride!" Lots of "natural" running could use improvement. Mainly though, I just admire the runners' grit and persistence.
If you run for fun and health, you don't need to heed the advice about performance, efficiency, optimum stride, pace etc. Just run. And my advice about the stride is, vary it during your run. Run with very long strides on down hill and very short strides on up hill. On level, just vary it every now and then. It will use different muscles and keep you more fit. It is like "fartlleks".
1
As a long time mountain runner and coach who has taught and studied form, your "long strides on down hill" comment is concerning. First, it's not about length but tempo. Second, On hills, a quicker stride is generally (not always) more efficient, whether up or down. Up, quicker strides keep your stride momentum going. Too much time on the ground slows or stops your momentum. Down, too long/slow increases pounding. Keep your stride under you (don't reach too far forward), and think of running on hot coals.
Beyond that, varying your stride will help reduce repetitive use injuries. That's the main reason why trail running is easier on the body.
Beyond that, varying your stride will help reduce repetitive use injuries. That's the main reason why trail running is easier on the body.
8
Please don't make a habit of long strides on down hills...unless you want to visit a local PT or Dr's office sooner than later.
1
As an older runner my #1 concern is the longevity of my legs. Last year after recovering from a knee injury I decided to slow down and decrease the impact on my knees. I went from an average 6.3 mph to 5.1 mph. I many be less efficient at 5.1 mph, but I don't care. I just want to be able to run for as many years as possible.
7
Usain Bolt's jerky stride explained?
Though stride impact may differ for sprinters rather than joggers.
And all the readers who have made the point every runner knows: a change in stride or running motion, even if almost imperceptible, has an impact on ease and efficiency of breathing. Only long duration practice of the new approach would have a chance of accurately assessing whether one or the other is better.
Though stride impact may differ for sprinters rather than joggers.
And all the readers who have made the point every runner knows: a change in stride or running motion, even if almost imperceptible, has an impact on ease and efficiency of breathing. Only long duration practice of the new approach would have a chance of accurately assessing whether one or the other is better.
The usual outcome, for me, when I try to consciously change my running style, is injury. Lengthen your stride, rotate your pelvis, straighten your back, use more arm motion does on their own did nothing for my race times, and generally made work outs more miserable.
I did find that changing the type of workout: short sprints, running down hill, etc, instead of steady mid-distance runs on flat terrain of an hour each day modified my stride. I didn't change how I ran, I just let my body find it's own way of dealing with whatever location I was running over.
Also, as I am prone to lower back injuries, I spend some time running backwards when I can't run forward. That changes the muscle balance in the quads; which changed the length of stride (longer). As did doing more training sessions of just sprinting. My best guess as to why, is that it changed the ratio of fast twitch to slow twitch muscle.
I did find that changing the type of workout: short sprints, running down hill, etc, instead of steady mid-distance runs on flat terrain of an hour each day modified my stride. I didn't change how I ran, I just let my body find it's own way of dealing with whatever location I was running over.
Also, as I am prone to lower back injuries, I spend some time running backwards when I can't run forward. That changes the muscle balance in the quads; which changed the length of stride (longer). As did doing more training sessions of just sprinting. My best guess as to why, is that it changed the ratio of fast twitch to slow twitch muscle.
1
With all due respect, efficient running strides are NOT always "built in". I have had the same experience as Dale, the PT from St Louis. As a PT who has also worked with hundreds of competitive and recreational runners, modifying biomechanics to promote efficiency, ie reduce unneeded stress, can work wonders. And cadence and stride length happens to be an important variable in this equation. Similar to lifting mechanics. Lifting a box off the floor/bending forward with poor mechanics can lead to serious injury; lifting/bending with proper mechanics can prevent serious injury. If I work with someone with poor lifting mechanics I will teach them proper lifting mechanics. Just because they have been lifting using poor mechanics all of their lives does not mean that it is correct and will not lead to injury or painful stress reaction and consequence.
5
I agree with you but the underlying theory here, and in other articles I've read, is that running, like walking, is innate and therefore any instruction is counter-productive. OTOH, if I were to attempt to walk across the US, it would probably be beneficial to listen to the advice of other people who've successfully done it.
1
Conclusions vastly overstated. Results show that habitual stride cadence is less aerobically taxing than a new stride cadence, with the caveats that this was a one trial measurement, the subjects were wearing shoes (presumably), and that gait patterns on a treadmill differ from ground running. The results don't say anything about speed, aerobic capacity and injury risk after training with an expert to improve gait - on a non moving surface, without heavy athletic shoes, over time. Furthermore, sample sizes are so small (and unevenly weighted) that the chance of error belies "comforting" findings.
8
Pretty cool, but limited...and maybe even misleading study.
Maybe the body can actually adapt to a more economical and optimal style of running but that probably takes more time and multiple repetitions.
So although the change may hurt in the short-run (economically), there may be benefits in the long-run if making the adjustments.
Maybe the body can actually adapt to a more economical and optimal style of running but that probably takes more time and multiple repetitions.
So although the change may hurt in the short-run (economically), there may be benefits in the long-run if making the adjustments.
4
Flawed study. OF COURSE you are going to spend more energy when you start doing things in a different way than your muscles are used to. But the question is what happens after you get more accustomed to the new stride, say in two months, rather than in two minutes, which is what was done in this study.
9
Agree - flawed study. Many runners have a "natural" style which is inefficient - for example, landing heavily (which wastes energy), taking long strides (which also wastes energy by introducing a pause in forward movement), etc. Changing one's natural stride to become more energy-efficient takes time and persistence, and may feel uncomfortable in the beginning (as shown in the study). Having become a barefoot runner at age 64, I can attest to a long and not injury free transition. The result, however, is that I now run with a lower heartrate and better endurance than I ever achieved in shoes pounding the tarmac.
I'm 75 and in a retirement home. Each day I walk around inside with hand weighs swinging up and down for 15 minutes. When younger I ran a lot for many years. My heart is in good shape.
4
Letting your own style of running can be detrimental to future running. This has allowed me to keep running with no injuries (I'm 60) for the last decade:
http://www.active.com/fitness/articles/5-elements-of-chi-running
Very simple: "...Stand upright straight & tall - arms, hips, and ankles in a straight line. Lean forward from your ankles. Never let your foot get ahead of your hips. Let your hip go back with your leg, rotating your hips as you run with a level pelvis. Never "heel strike" with your feet as you run - land each stride midfoot...". Works for me...
http://www.active.com/fitness/articles/5-elements-of-chi-running
Very simple: "...Stand upright straight & tall - arms, hips, and ankles in a straight line. Lean forward from your ankles. Never let your foot get ahead of your hips. Let your hip go back with your leg, rotating your hips as you run with a level pelvis. Never "heel strike" with your feet as you run - land each stride midfoot...". Works for me...
3
As pretty much everyone else said - this does not even ring vaguely true. As an experienced runner at the collegiate level - I can tell within 10 secs who is and who is not a competent long distance runner.
And the two choices are radically different.
And the two choices are radically different.
5
I think the point here is that each of us has a most efficient stride for ourselves. That does not automatically mean that we are good runners on any external scale of assessment (i.e. how fast can you run the 800?). The vast majority of people are not competent runners in any absolute sense. This just means they are fated to remain such no matter what they do with their stride. The stride they naturally adopt is as good as it gets, I guess.
We aren't all running to win races or to keep raising our personal bests. Some of us just want to burn calories and improve our aerobic conditioning. I couldn't care less if it takes me 5 miles instead of 10 to burn X calories, as long as I burn X calories. If an inefficient runner gets an equivalent cardio workout running 5 miles that an efficient runner gets running 10, isn't the inefficient runner actually a more efficient exerciser in terms of health benefits per mile?
1
Thanks for the replies but I find it impossible to square your observations with what the article actually says: "Researchers found that both experienced and beginning runners tend to settle into the stride that is most efficient for them."
This makes me feel good. I've been running for 5+ years, over 3 consistently weekly all year round and in researching help with speed I found a video about different running styles. I tried them on my own and it seemed to put strain on my body. I think the best one can do to improve is best mile, and distance, and best distance times. Our bodies are the ones putting everything into its place, we focus on the practice.
If you run with an upright style and are experiencing injuries, check out chi running. You may be striking the ground primarily with your heels and putting too much stress on your legs, spine, etc. If you learn to run by leaning more forward at the ankles, you can develop the muscle memory to strike with your midsole or fore foot area and cut back on the pounding that your body takes. It has worked well for me.
5
It takes some time to adjust to a new stride and cadence. It's difficult to know how a gradual change would impact speed and efficiency-and not evaluated by this study
Seems like this study would be more valid if the test subjects maintained the altered cadence and stride length for a long period than one day to determine if there were any effective gains by maintaining an optimal cadence and stride length. My first thought is the change would create deficiencies as they adjusted the changes.
2
Stride length and cadence matter so much less than mechanics. For example, if there is a problem in the foot or ankle it doesn't matter what's happening above. Reducing over- or under-pronation can dramatically reduce pain and improve performance.
1
This study is very poorly done. The mechanics of running are more intricate than simply adjusting cadence. And VO2 as used here would be a poor measure on its own in evaluating efficiency. Lastly, treadmill running is not the same as open road or track.
4
Foolish to the foolish.
Two days?
In a learned muscle activity, why would improvement from a norm be expected on day two? Running is a complex activity with many moving parts. Changing the habit takes effort. Training 101 if not training preschool
Imagine if these researchers took on yoga, or judo. Yikes. Day two. No flexibility, does not know how to fall any better.
Two days?
In a learned muscle activity, why would improvement from a norm be expected on day two? Running is a complex activity with many moving parts. Changing the habit takes effort. Training 101 if not training preschool
Imagine if these researchers took on yoga, or judo. Yikes. Day two. No flexibility, does not know how to fall any better.
13
I've run for 25 years and varied my gate some. In my older years, I've settled on a relaxed stride. Most informative on this subject, though, is watching my young son. He has found the running economy that works well for him and is consistently the fastest in his class. I keep my hands off and let him play soccer, chase me or be chased! It turns out that he has all the efficiency he needs -- no science required.
Clearly, the authors have never seen me run.
Lots of good points made by posters. Any runner with the desire can become a better, more efficient runner. Even without coaches. Some cellphome footage and viewing pro runners in the distance you wish to run can teach a person what they need to be a better runner.
One thing not mentioned is the role the upper body plays in proper running. Running efficiently is not just about the legs and feet. It also involves all the muscles in the torso, neck and arms. And lots of beginner runners, even some long term runners, have atrocious upper body positioning. It may work for some, but small changes, made incrementally, can make forbetter running over the long term.
Many runners complain of sore low, upper backs, neck kinks, tired arms, etc. Most of which is not from the pounding, but the too tight, or too loose, odd angles people hold their upper bodies. People too often lock down their upper bodies, focusing all their attention on their legs, the foot falls. Some lean too far forward, putting strain on a weak low back, glute muscles. Some are ramrod straight, which is not a natural position either. Others list to one side.
Watch the pros, but take a look at children and other creatures that run...its a full body movement. Adult humans have a tendency to isolate body parts during both exercise and other movements that tax us. Causing over/undercompensations in the body.
Running well demands the body to work as a whole, not just the legs, with the upper along for the ride.
One thing not mentioned is the role the upper body plays in proper running. Running efficiently is not just about the legs and feet. It also involves all the muscles in the torso, neck and arms. And lots of beginner runners, even some long term runners, have atrocious upper body positioning. It may work for some, but small changes, made incrementally, can make forbetter running over the long term.
Many runners complain of sore low, upper backs, neck kinks, tired arms, etc. Most of which is not from the pounding, but the too tight, or too loose, odd angles people hold their upper bodies. People too often lock down their upper bodies, focusing all their attention on their legs, the foot falls. Some lean too far forward, putting strain on a weak low back, glute muscles. Some are ramrod straight, which is not a natural position either. Others list to one side.
Watch the pros, but take a look at children and other creatures that run...its a full body movement. Adult humans have a tendency to isolate body parts during both exercise and other movements that tax us. Causing over/undercompensations in the body.
Running well demands the body to work as a whole, not just the legs, with the upper along for the ride.
5
"Watch the pros, but take a look at children and other creatures that run..."
So children's unschooled, pure and natural running style is just as good as the pros'. If you think about it, isn't that what the article is saying?
So children's unschooled, pure and natural running style is just as good as the pros'. If you think about it, isn't that what the article is saying?
It makes sense that when running your body is most efficient using its most oft used style, and subsequently that when you abruptly change this style (shorter/longer gait, different cadence...) your body consumes more energy. But it doesn't follow that the stride you've been using is the most efficient, it's simply the one that your body has learned...If you train your body to adopt a different "ideal stride" then, from the logic of this article, this stride would then be the most efficient.
People learn to speak, swim, throw, lift naturally but that doesn't mean their natural method is a good one.
People learn to speak, swim, throw, lift naturally but that doesn't mean their natural method is a good one.
5
This is true for many things, as you say. The cracks in the armor show up the more you do something.
Yes, the body will have a "natural" gait to perform what activity you are asking it to do. But the body is instinctively reacting to your physical conditioning. A short leg. Tight hamstrings. Maybe you are just physically unskilled.
But to say one cant improve in technique and efficiency is just wrong.
Swimming is an obvious example. If one is not efficient one will never swim well or quickly or easily. The dynamics of water exemplify every movement. Hydrodynamics will tell you quickly if your natural stroke is poor or inefficient.
As in running, we all may have a normal stride, but as miles add up and speed increases it becomes about mechanics and biometrics. You may survive, or not, if you run poorly but you'll never be quick and efficiently sustainable.
Proper form and technique can improve everyone. (With our own foibles and preferences included of course.)
But to say one cant improve in technique and efficiency is just wrong.
Swimming is an obvious example. If one is not efficient one will never swim well or quickly or easily. The dynamics of water exemplify every movement. Hydrodynamics will tell you quickly if your natural stroke is poor or inefficient.
As in running, we all may have a normal stride, but as miles add up and speed increases it becomes about mechanics and biometrics. You may survive, or not, if you run poorly but you'll never be quick and efficiently sustainable.
Proper form and technique can improve everyone. (With our own foibles and preferences included of course.)
23
By simply observing several random recreational runners it is easy to spot those who should change their running style to prevent injury and improve efficiency. For example, runners slapping the ground with each footfall, and others erratically bouncing vertically and or oscillating from side to side. This feels natural to them because they have become conditioned to a really bad running style.
12
So they varied the cadence up and down and the runners and the runners made the inverse adjustment to their stride length because the treadmill speed was maintained as a constant. In other words, the runners would change their cadence and stride but they had to do so without adjusting their speed. While I understand why the researches may have done this, it seems to me that this could be a flaw in the study. Had the runners been permitted to also adjust their speed (along with cadence and or stride length), perhaps there may have been some faster speed at which they could have run without a corresponding increase in effort, which would reflect greater efficiency.
5
They couldn't let them do that because they wanted to test the efficiency of a cadence change exclusively.
Or this just tells you that when we train our muscles to run in one style, abruptly changing that style puts more strain on the untrained muscles. The big question is if changing style is more efficient AFTER your body has had time to adjust (months).
60
Yes! That is exactly my thought. This study doesn't seem very helpful or like it's even looked at anything all that useful.
I agree. Changes in muscle memory can be difficult and harder on the body in the short term, but long term benefits can be worth the effort.
1
I would prefer to see a study that looked at altering vertical and lateral oscillations. I would also like to see some training them train more then 2 min since it is likely to use different muscle groups to alter your run.
3
From many years of running I would say that training with a higher cadence decreases the chance of injury. However, this is because you are actually decreasing your optimal efficiency. Training and coaching will let you know what your ideal cadence is for maximum speed over the distance you want to run.
As for style I'm sure you can change it for the better. When your front foot lands there should be as little braking as possible. You'll go faster and there'll be less stress on the knees and muscles. Listen to your body, its not a chore, its cathartic. Start at low miles and increase slowly- but always increase.
As for style I'm sure you can change it for the better. When your front foot lands there should be as little braking as possible. You'll go faster and there'll be less stress on the knees and muscles. Listen to your body, its not a chore, its cathartic. Start at low miles and increase slowly- but always increase.
9
Does one not consume more oxygen when you are told not just run-- but to run exactly this way....." right foot matching the click of the metronome"? This seems stressful and likely awkward. When I am stressed and awkward I am sure that I will consume more oxygen with a more active brain and a non-natural (awkward) stride. I would redo the study with no music, slower music and fast music, and I think that all paces will be efficient-- because the metronome coach is not yelling into your ear like a drill sergeant.
I don't think the study tells us that coaching is a waste of time or whether there are better or worse ways of running-- the study simply found that "contrived" running is not energy efficient.
I don't think the study tells us that coaching is a waste of time or whether there are better or worse ways of running-- the study simply found that "contrived" running is not energy efficient.
3
I agree with Robert Forster's comment. Any short term change from one's accustomed stride, swing, stroke, etc., is likely to reduce efficiency and effectiveness until one adapts to the changed condition.
The article does not, by the way, tell whether efficiency was degraded for each and every subject in the experiment, or whether all runners in each group were averaged to find that efficiency degraded on the average. It wouldn't be surprising if some benefited immediately from the change.
The article does not, by the way, tell whether efficiency was degraded for each and every subject in the experiment, or whether all runners in each group were averaged to find that efficiency degraded on the average. It wouldn't be surprising if some benefited immediately from the change.
4
This is a meaningless study. Of course every runner -- fast and experienced or not -- is going to be less efficient with a new stride on first trying it. But perhaps it will be more efficient than the original stride after a transition period. This is not to say that coaches should try to change their athletes' running mechanics to a preconceived ideal as those ideals may or may not actually be helpful for any given runner, but I just want to make the point that this study pretty much tells us nothing (other than there won't be *immediate* gains to changes in mechanics, I guess).
It's the same issue with nearly all running studies: too short-term to be useful. This is why science trails experience in running training. If you were to listen to the studies, HIIT training is the ideal, but through experience every world class coach knows that you can't do high-intensity interval training on a year-round basis. We more or less tried that in the 90s and US running at the elite level fell off the map. Now that we're back to running reasonably high mileage with periods of well-conceived interval work, US running is arguably the best in the world outside of East Africa (see Matt Centrowitz, Galen Rupp, Molly Huddle, Even Jager, Shalane Flanagan, etc).
It's the same issue with nearly all running studies: too short-term to be useful. This is why science trails experience in running training. If you were to listen to the studies, HIIT training is the ideal, but through experience every world class coach knows that you can't do high-intensity interval training on a year-round basis. We more or less tried that in the 90s and US running at the elite level fell off the map. Now that we're back to running reasonably high mileage with periods of well-conceived interval work, US running is arguably the best in the world outside of East Africa (see Matt Centrowitz, Galen Rupp, Molly Huddle, Even Jager, Shalane Flanagan, etc).
21
"Researchers found that both experienced and beginning runners tend to settle into the stride that is most efficient for them."
Hardly a day goes by that I am not amazed at the "research" we humans do. The very idea that an organism leans towards efficiency.
Gosh.
Hardly a day goes by that I am not amazed at the "research" we humans do. The very idea that an organism leans towards efficiency.
Gosh.
1
As an experienced runner, and as a physician who has worked for years with runners, I've been saying this for years. Trying to alter your stride to something that is less comfortable for you (and more unnatural) is a prescription for trouble. If your stride is too short, by others' estimation, it means you probably aren't yet fit enough to have a longer stride. Your stride is apt to lengthen as your fitness increases. If it still is judged to be too short by others, tell them they don't know what they are talking about, as long as you are comfortable with it. If you feel your stride is too long, or other say this, as long as it feels comfortable, I wouldn't try to change it. If you are experiencing strain and your gait is abnormal, you may need treatment for a leg length discrepancy, inward or outward curvature of the knee joint. Ultimately, if you can't find a comfortable stride, running might not be the best form of exercise for you. Cycling, rowing, yoga, or other forms of exercise are also great. I'm all for not forcing the body to do what it isn't designed to do, but helping it when it can be helped.
12
I don't know about this. I used to have a very long, bounding stride, with a considerable vertical oscillation. I loved running this way, and I was pretty fast , but I used to pull my calf muscles frequently A coach made me shorten my stride. I can't say it was comfortable initially, but it stopped the injuries. A couple of years later, I'm now used to it, and I'm injury free. Still struggling with speed (but that may be because I am now old)
4
The Usain Bolt thesis? "Something Strange in Usain Bolt’s Stride" 20170720 NYTimes.
@Mark:
The accustomed stride which felt "natural" to me produced constant injuries. Consciously re-training a new stride, which initially felt "unnatural", reduced my running injuries.
The accustomed stride which felt "natural" to me produced constant injuries. Consciously re-training a new stride, which initially felt "unnatural", reduced my running injuries.
1
Not sure I agree. The form associated with the fewest injuries is landing on the balls of one's feet or mid-strike. With shoes, many are heal strikers, which can lead to injuries. Also, on a tread mill, it can be difficult to land on the balls of the feet when going relatively fast.
2
I wondered about this too. I have a fairly short stride, which is one of the reasons I'm not very fast -- but I'm also a mid-foot striker, which I definitely think has helped protect me from serious running-related injury. (Knock wood, the only significant injury I've had in the course of training for and completing a marathon, three half-marathons, and six 10-milers was an inflamed nerve in my toes -- a problem solved when I got properly fitted for shoes and found out I was wearing a size too small.)
2
My regular shoe size is 9.5, but have been running in 11.5 for 15 years, and since then have kept all my toe nails.
1
I have shoes that fit like a glove on hands and walk with them on for 15 min. each day. Inside.
I had taken a break from running due to lower back issues and started again during the"barefoot running" craze. I changed my stride from hell-striking to forefoot. I did notice that my stride wasn't as long as it used to be. Yet I stayed with it because at the end of long runs my things were not as sore as they used to be. I have tried to lengthen my stride but I have to make an effort to focus on gait, striking, arm movement, etc. and when my mind start to wander again into the thoughts (work, house projects, plans, etc.) I seem to return to the same pattern. During those few minutes that I change my stride, I do feel clumsy and also like I'm making an extra effort and thus lower economy. I have always thought your body will tell you when something is wrong. Listen to it.
2
I am wondering how they controlled for the effort required to consciously keep pace with the metronome; it seems like any running aside from the kind where you can shut your brain off and run would inherently be less efficient.
1
True if you run barefoot,
4
It's still not necessarily automatic.
Years ago, as part of the barefoot race that used to happen on Governor's Island, I'd won a one-on-one training session with Lee Saxby (expert aligned with Vivobarefoot shoes) who told me - the day before the race - that my gait was all wrong. Even barefoot, I still managed to heel-strike. On the day of the race, he ended up running the first lap around the island right next to me. Every time I slacked on my gait, he would tap me on the shoulder.
To this day, I have to mindful of my gait when I run.
Years ago, as part of the barefoot race that used to happen on Governor's Island, I'd won a one-on-one training session with Lee Saxby (expert aligned with Vivobarefoot shoes) who told me - the day before the race - that my gait was all wrong. Even barefoot, I still managed to heel-strike. On the day of the race, he ended up running the first lap around the island right next to me. Every time I slacked on my gait, he would tap me on the shoulder.
To this day, I have to mindful of my gait when I run.
True, but you do need protections for your feet. I wear barefoot shoes inside. They fit over my feet like gloves.
The running stride that felt "natural" to me was a clumsy, awkward overstride that produced constant injuries. When we are injured, running efficiency drops to zero. I improved my running and reduced injury by consciously re-learning my running posture with a shorter, quicker stride.
To re-phrase an old saying, "if it _is_ broke, then do something to fix it."
To re-phrase an old saying, "if it _is_ broke, then do something to fix it."
22
As a long time runner, I have experience on all types of running surfaces. Running on a treadmill kills a natural stride. The study should be done on a track preferably outside. I realize that this is more difficult to control but I do know of any runner who believes running stride on a treadmill replicates the real dynamics of running.
27
George is absolutely correct. Especially if one typically lands on the balls of one's feet, this is difficult to do on a treadmill.
In the same vein: forcing these runners to produce "a single, sustainable running speed" seems doomed from the start. Reason: you're forcing them to match two things at once - the metronome, AND the treadmill speed. That sounds very clumsy to me. If they ran on a normal track while listening to a metronome through ear buds, thus choosing a *natural* speed for each cadence (not a single constant speed), the results might well be different.
1
You do NOT know of any runner who believes running stride on a treadmill ...
Indeed, I don't either.
Indeed, I don't either.
This study only proves that changing gait style, will at first, be more strenuous as the runner is not use to it. After gaining the fitness to pull off a more efficient gait we see their oxygen consumption will go down. its all about physics. If Track and Field coaches never work with athletes to improve their mechanics in all events they would never improve their performance past their first attempts at an event.
26
As a physical therapist who works with a variety of competitive and recreational runners I find this article extremely flawed. I video and change cadence on almost everyone who comes in with pain. Very rarely do you find runners with extremely common ailments that have the correct cadence. There are also other factors such as hip drop, trunk rotation and vertical displacement that would be the runners most "efficient" way of running but leads to a multitude of ailments in the process. Also, I always warn them they will become more fatigued with the new cadence but after 1-2 weeks their bodies will adjust to the new normal. Not 1 person has ever told me they did not adjust. The new cadence often times helps quite a bit with mainly ailments such as anterior knee pain and shin splints and on occasion is literally the only thing I change. No additional stretches or exercises required. Let's not confuse economy with correct biomechanics.
15
Precisely. If you told a facile 'hunt-and-peck' two-finger typist to use appropriate touch-typing technique for two minutes, their rate of typing will drop precipitously, while continued training in proper technique will likely yield a significant improvement in typing speed.
1
As a PT who has also worked with hundreds of competitive and recreational runners, modifying biomechanics to promote efficiency, ie reduce unneeded stress, works wonders. And cadence and stride length happens to be an important variable in this equation. Similar to lifting mechanics. Lifting a box off the floor/bending forward with poor mechanics can lead to serious injury; lifting/bending with proper mechanics can prevent serious injury. If I work with someone with poor lifting mechanics I will teach them proper lifting mechanics. Just because they have been lifting using poor mechanics all their lives does not mean that it is correct and will not lead to injury or painful stress reaction and consequence. With all due respect, efficient running strides are NOT always "built in".
1